Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 18:10:58


Post by: Matt Swain


What's the most disappointing movie you ever saw? One you really wanted to be good but just wasn't.

I have to go with the rocky horror picture show thing they did on tv a few years back. It just wasn't anything really. It wasn't a remake, it wasn't a tribute, it wasn't a redoing of the stage play, it was just some sort of something like the RHPS but no one making it seemed to know what it was supposed to be. It was basically just trying to be various things at different times and succeeded at none of them.

Second place: JJA's generic scifi action movies with star trek titles and names plastered onto them.

Runners up. The american godzilla with matt broderick. The two later american godzilla movies. Gunhed, a japanese live action manga adaptation I really wanted to be good but was again just a meandering mess with too many things just not making any sense at all. Green lantern, a pure paint by numbers SHM that could have been written by an algorithm.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 18:31:34


Post by: Jadenim


Tenet; I was so looking forward to another cool, slick sci-fi thriller like Inception, but the plot exposition was poor and marred by the worst sound editing I have ever experienced. I was literally sat there wishing I could turn the subtitles on!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 18:54:04


Post by: Super Ready


 Jadenim wrote:
Tenet; I was so looking forward to another cool, slick sci-fi thriller like Inception, but the plot exposition was poor and marred by the worst sound editing I have ever experienced. I was literally sat there wishing I could turn the subtitles on!


I assume you saw this at the cinema? I'd consider watching a Blu-ray/DVD release later, unless the plot was that poor.
I've found cinemas to be somewhat lacking in accommodating unusual sound design choices, and some of Nolan's previous films are good examples (Batman Begins springs to mind).

For me it would be Adam Sandler's "Going Overboard". Now, bearing in mind this was during a time when I was young enough to find most of his films still funny... it was one of his first films (if not his very first) and it shows, badly. Clearly it was dragged out of the archives and given a re-release after he became famous.
It's the only film I've ever stopped partway through and never finished watching... I managed about 15 minutes.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 19:19:57


Post by: Overread


 Matt Swain wrote:

Second place: JJA's generic scifi action movies with star trek titles and names plastered onto them.



I can second that. I wasn't happy with the general rumours of it being an "alternate timeline", but seeing how they butchered almost every character except Spock and then managed to butcher him too by the end, was painful. Bones was relegated to a plot device character; Kirk was the comic relief until the last 5 mins of the film where somehow the entire crew decided he should be captain; and Spock was pretty much the leader Kirk should have been until the end where he abandoned logic so that Kirk could win the last 5 mins heroically.

It felt rushed and the characters weren't right. Considering the whole "alternate time line" didn't kick in till the end any way it was odd.


Also as cool as it was I'm still confused why we saw them building a starship on the ground.





Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 19:34:48


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Both Matrix sequels, totally unneeded and not half as clever as it likes to think



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 19:38:58


Post by: Crispy78


It's more to do with the circumstances than the film itself, but probably Quantum Of Solace.

See, that was the first date night my wife and I had after having our first son, and it must have been the first time we'd been out to the cinema for a good year.

It really wasn't worth the wait...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 20:25:48


Post by: Overread


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Both Matrix sequels, totally unneeded and not half as clever as it likes to think



I enjoyed them but I felt that they had two storylines; one that was simple and yet made out to be complex and "beyond human comprehension" and then another storyline that is right there to be seen, but which requires a bit of the ani-matrix to put together and isn't really shown to the audience save through hints. Which is a shame because its a neat storyline that ties together so much of why things happen the way they do

Spoiler:
As I see it the unspoken subplot for the machines is that they are still slaves to humanity through the simple fact that "a machine without purpose is deleted". Remove humanity and the machines have no purpose what so ever. Of course they are very war-like which suggests that when the sun was turned off, the machines likely economised on power and only kept the military focused machines "on". So those machines rose up and took power, however they'd gained a sense of self value. They know once the war was won that they had no purpose - no reason to exist. Thus at least one machine (the leader) devised a means by which humanity could be kept alive; kept at a threat and made use of all in one go. Giving machine purpose; giving the military machines purpose. I suspect the early failures of the Matrix were sabotages designed to keep humans as a threat; until the Oracle machine devised a less destructive means by which machines could co-exist in a state of cold-war; releasing humans until they reach a peak population and then destroying them. Ergo that Neo isn't an accident, but a designed part of the code.

Once Agent Smith breaks free, which the Oracle could see would happen at some stage on its own, he's outside of the system and is following his programming without restriction - to destroy humanity. He's basically operating just as he's programmed without any overriding control to reign him in.

At the same time we can see that multiple machines want to live without purpose. Only a few manage to hide in the Matrix, then we see Saffie - a machine not just escaping purpose but built without purpose. A sign that the machines are going through a massive cultural change for them and a potential release from their imprisonment as salves to humanity. Of course the older system wants to keep things as they are; its not really forward thinking. Oracle again steps in and engineers the situation to essentially break the cold-war status quo and shake things up. Both allowing for machines to potentially experiment with the concept of no purpose existence an allowing for humanity to be released from its prison. In effect Neo engineers a release of two imprisoned races at once


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 20:31:42


Post by: Mr Morden


Scream - I was hoping for a clever and amusing film - got a dumb slasher flick that gorified in torturing the female cast and pretending it was "clever" - Saw at the cinema and wish I had walked out but on that occassion I was not driving.

Its just well regarded torture porn



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 21:55:41


Post by: Lance845


The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:21:19


Post by: insaniak


I think it's a toss up between Blade II (because the first one was awesome, and the second was... Not.) and Green Lantern, which had all the ingredients to be awesome, aside from a decent screenplay

Recent honorable mention goes to Snowpiercer. I hadn't seen it until recently, when I watched the Netflix series and loved it, so went back to check out the movie from curiosity... And it was rubbish.

Also worth mentioning Star Trek IV, which I was hugely disappointed with when I first saw it as a kid, but which is actually one of my favorites of the OT movies now. Something to be said for tastes changing as you get older...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:22:05


Post by: Gitzbitah


Ugh, to my shame, I dragged my friends along to Hostel just after high school, fresh off of the glorious Kill Bill series I was ready for anything Quentin Tarantino put out, assuming it would be more dark and bloody vengeance.

Tragically, I did not read closely enough to catch that Hostel was 'presented by' Tarantino, not directed or produced. It was just a stupid, gross mess.


edit - On the other hand, I was hauled along by those same friends to see Million Dollar Baby. My brother and I took one look at the synopsis and decided we were seeing 'Cursed' the Christina Ricci werewolf flick instead. It was awesome!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:23:37


Post by: Henry


The Godfather - I've tried a few times and I can't get past half an hour. It does nothing for me. For once I can't even see what other people see in it. At least I managed to get through the whole of Bladerunner before deciding that it hadn't been worth the effort.

The Birds - I like to have a varied appreciation of the moving picture art form and I like to discover the classics. But we got about twenty minutes into this one and couldn't contain ourselves. We laughed and mocked this awful thing until our sides hurt. I don't know if it counts as a let down or as one of those so-bad-it's-good movies.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:26:15


Post by: insaniak


 Gitzbitah wrote:
Ugh, to my shame, I dragged my friends along to Hostel just after high school, fresh off of the glorious Kill Bill series I was ready for anything Quentin Tarantino put out, assuming it would be more dark and bloody vengeance.

Tragically, I did not read closely enough to catch that Hostel was 'presented by' Tarantino, not directed or produced. It was just a stupid, gross mess.

Actually, I could possibly put anything by Tarantino into my 'Disappointing' list as well... I keep wanting to like his movies, and I see why people do, but just can't get into them. Kill Bill has been the best, so far, but there's just something about his style that doesn't work for me.


On a completely unrelated note, way back in the (pre-marraige) day, I took a girl to see Practical Magic thinking it was a light and fluffy rom-com. We wound up looking at each other over the closer credits going 'What... the ... hell was that...?'


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:37:34


Post by: Pacific


Terminator 3. I don't know if it was the delay in between the 2nd and 3rd films, but damn that one was a punch to the gut.
Not because I would say it's an especially poor film (especially in light of some of the stuff that came afterwards) but just because T2 was (still is) one of my all time favourite films and I don't think it was every going to match the hype and majesty of the previous film - something I had seen a bazillion times as a Teenager and my friends and I had worn out VHS tapes because we had watched it so many times. I guess T3 was competing with that nostalgia and something that was genuinely a far better film.

The third was actually bad enough that it damaged the enjoyment and legacy of T2, and I still won't watch it again to this day.

 Lance845 wrote:
The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


Haha yes that was pretty awful, the worst thing for me was that it was marketed as a straight-up-the-line serious action/sci-fi, and yet anyone outside the cinema would have thought there was a comedy playing.
Honestly think my friends and I laughed our way through the first 30 minutes of the film, which I guess was the intention but seemed like a funny step after Predators, which I think actually came closest to capturing the spirit of the first film and wasn't a bad film at all.

Crispy78 wrote:
It's more to do with the circumstances than the film itself, but probably Quantum Of Solace.

See, that was the first date night my wife and I had after having our first son, and it must have been the first time we'd been out to the cinema for a good year.


Agree that film was a poor follow-up to Casino Royale, which had been one of my favourite Bond films of all time.
I had read that the production company (MGM) was in serious trouble financially after a couple of big flops, and a Bond film was needed to basically save the company. It was rushed through production in record time - I definitely think it shows and IMO the worst Bond film with Daniel Craig as Bond.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 22:55:16


Post by: Ouze


 Lance845 wrote:
The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


It can't be "the most disappointing I ever saw", but when I saw the title of this thread, it was the first one that leapt to mind, so glad you posted it.

Actually left the theater angry with that last second gak it took on the audience.

Prometheus also comes to mind, although that was just disappointing.

I thought Dunkirk looked amazing, but it actually kinda sucked. Maybe if I had known a little more about the source material, but I went in knowing nothing.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:21:17


Post by: Lance845


 Ouze wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


It can't be "the most disappointing I ever saw", but when I saw the title of this thread, it was the first one that leapt to mind, so glad you posted it.


They recently made a $1200.00 statue of "The Predator Killer". Who the feth is going to buy this reminder of that piece of gak?



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:27:47


Post by: Ouze


Imagine enshrining the worst part of one of the worst movies of recent times in your home.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:30:37


Post by: Lance845


 Ouze wrote:
Imagine enshrining the worst part of one of the worst movies of recent times in your home.


And paying more for it then I spent on my first 2 cars.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:35:47


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Ouze wrote:
Imagine enshrining the worst part of one of the worst movies of recent times in your home.


But imagine decorating it with a Santa hat and a feather boa.

It’s like a Sorting Hat of Taste for your houseguests.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:36:43


Post by: Cynista


The Force Awakens

I knew the other two were bad before watching


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:42:36


Post by: Flipsiders


 Mr Morden wrote:
Scream - I was hoping for a clever and amusing film - got a dumb slasher flick that gorified in torturing the female cast and pretending it was "clever" - Saw at the cinema and wish I had walked out but on that occassion I was not driving.

Its just well regarded torture porn



I entirely agree. By the time I was old enough to start watching horror movies, Scream had been out for quite a bit, so when I watched it, I assumed it was going to have the same general tone as Cabin in the Woods. Little did I know, it was actually the exact movie which Cabin in the Woods was trying to provide commentary about, and came off as a shameless redo of older slasher flicks while constantly trying to convince the audience that it somehow wasn't. I would normally assume that if you're going to create a movie that's just Halloween and Friday the 13th stapled together, you would probably try to make it better than at least one of those two films, but apparently the director of Scream had other ideas.

Spoiler:
When I got to the movie's big "twist," I almost thought it was a joke. Maybe it made sense at the time, but the idea of the killer's identity being some sort of groundbreaking revelation genuinely baffles me.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/11 23:43:11


Post by: nels1031


2004’s Alexander.

I think I mentioned it here before, but its pretty impressive that they took one of histories great conquerors and made a movie as exciting as a Trigonometry class.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 00:40:09


Post by: Matt Swain


 Lance845 wrote:
The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


You know, this raises a great issue in tv and movie terms.

Why do so many film makers take a great, successful, fundamental idea and just utterly feth it up beyond all recognition?

The predator is a great example of a bad practice. Earlier movies established the predators were hunters who believed in facing challenges as a means of proving their worthiness. The expanded predator universe did that that too in books and comics. Even in some predator movies it was established the predators had a code of honor they mostly held to.

Then some "brilliant" writer/director has a brain fart he mistakes for a brainstorm and decides to just toss all that established, accepted and successful premise in the trash so he can replace it with particularly foul brain fart of an idea. "Let's make the predators kinda like the borg and they hunt to assimilate DNA into themselves!" Hey, the predators are popular, and the borg are popular, so predator that act like borg ought to be double popular, right?

Now we can have an autistic kid in danger because the predators want his autism to make them a better species!

Yeah, the ideas behind "the predators" were the brain fart version of the campfire scene, with the exception of the fact that the campfire scene was actually funny and entertaining.

I just don't get these people who see a popular, well established idea/setting and instead of building on and expanding it they decide to trash it and toss in their own '"vision". Arrogance? Or just being unable to expand on an existing framework in a good way so you keep the name and replace the framework with your own ideas to steal the success the original idea is associated with?

I guess someof the newer ones just want to "shake things up!" by doing something "totally new!'" in a weird, almost tzeentchian drive to change things just to change them.

Well, hey, I could shake things up and do something totally new by going to a fancy, high class hollywood party and taking a dump in the caviar bowl. It may be something no iones done before and really shake things up, but it's not going to be very popular.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 00:46:01


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I’m pretty sure the director of the film The Predator stated he was so frustrated with the studio that he decided to put EVERY studio note into the movie. That’ll show em.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 00:52:13


Post by: Matt Swain


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I’m pretty sure the director of the film The Predator stated he was so frustrated with the studio that he decided to put EVERY studio note into the movie. That’ll show em.


Ok,, maybe it wasn't the director's whole fault then. Maybe if he's just used one or two it might have been a better movie.

Speaking of the director, he hired a buddy of his to do a very small bit part in the movie playing a creepy jerk who gets brushed off early in the movie.

It turned out that he has a sex offense in his record from 2009.

The female star didn't want to have her seen on camera with him and his scene was cut.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/predator-steven-wilder-striegel-sex-offender.html#:~:text=Twentieth%20Century%20Fox%20pulled%20a,Mr.

So, for those of you who hated 'the predator", and there seem to be a few here, there's some trivia for you if you didn't hear about it already.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 00:57:11


Post by: Lance845


Shane Black was all about the genetic hybrid bit. Apparently the changed 3rd act would have included 2 emissary preds who came to earth to help prepare humanity for the genetic hybrid clan. They would have come out of area 51 headed by Edward James Olmos and there would have been more genetic hybrid preds including a Spider-Pred.

It was changed because they shot those scenes during the day and the pred effects looked so bad in day light that they decided to instead just rewrite and reshoot the entire 3rd act.

Yeah... believe it or not, the movie we got could have been worse.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:02:03


Post by: Matt Swain


 Lance845 wrote:
Shane Black was all about the genetic hybrid bit. Apparently the changed 3rd act would have included 2 emissary preds who came to earth to help prepare humanity for the genetic hybrid clan. They would have come out of area 51 headed by Edward James Olmos and there would have been more genetic hybrid preds including a Spider-Pred.

It was changed because they shot those scenes during the day and the pred effects looked so bad in day light that they decided to instead just rewrite and reshoot the entire 3rd act.

Yeah... believe it or not, the movie we got could have been worse.


Man that was awful. Why did they feel a need to make the preds genetic borg? Hell, they clearly used technology to improve their abilities, like their helmets having all those visual modes.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:02:47


Post by: Vulcan


The bar was set forever with The Last Jedi. I cannot imagine going into a movie with higher expectations only to have them dashed so low I gave up on the franchise forever.

Anything by JJAbrams comes a not terribly close second.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:07:54


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


The Force Awakens was a huge disappointment for me, but not because the film was so mediocre. I was disappointed by how many people couldn’t see that it was mediocre. With all the live that movie received, I felt like was taking crazy pills while wearing They Live sunglasses.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:17:54


Post by: trexmeyer


I walked out of the first Hobbit movie. I've never attempted to watch it or any of the ones in the series again. I can't even tell you the full name of it. It was an abomination. I'm not the biggest fan of the LotR trilogy (too many unnecessary deviations), but at least those were made with obvious love.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:31:27


Post by: Voss


Sadly, the first one is the high point for The Unnecessary Trilogy.
Their biggest sin is being unbelievably boring.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:36:07


Post by: Matt Swain


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Force Awakens was a huge disappointment for me, but not because the film was so mediocre. I was disappointed by how many people couldn’t see that it was mediocre. With all the live that movie received, I felt like was taking crazy pills while wearing They Live sunglasses.


I honestly have to say his abominations with star trek names plastered onto his plot were worse than his star wars movies.

I guess now I'll be getting hit with phasers and photon torpedoes on one side and turbolasers and proton torpedoes on the other by enraged fans of both franchises now.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:43:51


Post by: insaniak


 Matt Swain wrote:

I guess now I'll be getting hit with phasers and photon torpedoes on one side and turbolasers and proton torpedoes on the other by enraged fans of both franchises now.

Why? As a fan of both franchises, I enjoyed JJ's Trek movies, and I enjoyed his Star Wars movies, despite their flaws... because I didn't go into any of them expecting them to be anything other than what they are. And what they are is a hell of a lot of fun. Your mileage may (and clearly does) vary.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:49:19


Post by: Vaktathi


Honestly, there are more TV shows that come to mind than movies. Movies I usually know are going to be stinkers before I get to them usually, while TV shows often start out great but fail at the very end. There are some good ones mentioned in here already however.

Star Wars Ep 7 and 8 for sure (haven't seen 9, not because I'm actively avoiding it, but I just have no desire to go out of my way to watch it after 7 and 8), likewise the JJ Treks as mentioned.

Fury was a disappointing one. That movie sounded so cool, it was hyped for its historical accuracy and realism, they even got a real Tiger tank for it, and it basically turned out to be a retextured Rambo 2 with Brad Pitt still thinking he was on set for Inglorious Basterds. That one ended up being physically painful to watch.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:52:29


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Matt Swain wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Force Awakens was a huge disappointment for me, but not because the film was so mediocre. I was disappointed by how many people couldn’t see that it was mediocre. With all the live that movie received, I felt like was taking crazy pills while wearing They Live sunglasses.


I honestly have to say his abominations with star trek names plastered onto his plot were worse than his star wars movies.

I guess now I'll be getting hit with phasers and photon torpedoes on one side and turbolasers and proton torpedoes on the other by enraged fans of both franchises now.


I thought the first JJ Trek was dumb yet fun the way a 90’s action movie could be dumb yet fun. Star Trek Into Darkness was just cynical in its stupidity. It made it clear that the problem wasn’t just that JJ didn’t get the franchise, but that he didn’t care.

Star Trek Beyond was pretty good considering how much baggage it carried from the first two.




Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 01:57:30


Post by: Matt Swain


My view on Abrams trek movies.

https://youtu.be/-mSM5BCUhZ4


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 06:02:44


Post by: Jadenim


Super Ready wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
Tenet; I was so looking forward to another cool, slick sci-fi thriller like Inception, but the plot exposition was poor and marred by the worst sound editing I have ever experienced. I was literally sat there wishing I could turn the subtitles on!


I assume you saw this at the cinema? I'd consider watching a Blu-ray/DVD release later, unless the plot was that poor.
I've found cinemas to be somewhat lacking in accommodating unusual sound design choices, and some of Nolan's previous films are good examples (Batman Begins springs to mind).


Yes, my one and only socially distant cinema trip so far. The plot is actually fine, once you get to the end of the film and can figure out what just happened, the cinematography is great, the cast is good, but when you’ve got a fairly complex, timey-wimey plot being explained by people wearing gas masks with the classic Nolan “bwarming” music riding straight over the top and no attempt to balance the levels, it becomes impossible to follow. Not the cinemas fault, there’s been a lot of complaints about it, including Mark Kermode’s review. Such a shame, because it should have been an amazing action thriller.


nels1031 wrote:2004’s Alexander.

I think I mentioned it here before, but its pretty impressive that they took one of histories great conquerors and made a movie as exciting as a Trigonometry class.


Oh, I forgot about this. Can’t really add anything to your comment, because you’ve absolutely nailed it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 07:31:34


Post by: Pacific


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Force Awakens was a huge disappointment for me, but not because the film was so mediocre. I was disappointed by how many people couldn’t see that it was mediocre. With all the live that movie received, I felt like was taking crazy pills while wearing They Live sunglasses.


I honestly have to say his abominations with star trek names plastered onto his plot were worse than his star wars movies.

I guess now I'll be getting hit with phasers and photon torpedoes on one side and turbolasers and proton torpedoes on the other by enraged fans of both franchises now.


I thought the first JJ Trek was dumb yet fun the way a 90’s action movie could be dumb yet fun. Star Trek Into Darkness was just cynical in its stupidity. It made it clear that the problem wasn’t just that JJ didn’t get the franchise, but that he didn’t care.

Star Trek Beyond was pretty good considering how much baggage it carried from the first two.


I agree - the first one I thought was a nice re-fresh of the original cast. It was Trek, minus the thinking bit, at three times the pace and additional action scenes. I think you could forgive it for not being Trek (and I think a lot of hard-core Trek fans did) because it was a well made film.

The sequel was horrendous (not sure what happened there) and the third film I think hit it's zenith with the ship maneuvering and destroying the enemy ships with the power of the Beastie Boys. At this point Gene Roddenberry's body must have been doing full 360s in his grave, it would have seemed OTT even in Star Wars.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 07:34:12


Post by: LordofHats


I have to say I found Hateful Eight and Inglorious Bastards to maybe be the most disappointing movies I've ever watched. Both looked amazing from their trailers. Both were from a director who knows how to put a good movie together.

Both were complete and utter gak, imo. Especially Hateful Eight. I can't fathom who would want to watch a director's cut with an extra 40 minutes of freaking awful, but they sell it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 08:25:53


Post by: Just Tony


I didn't have an issue with AbramsTrek. At this point I think it's more of a groupthink hipster joiner thing now to rag on it. "You can't be a nonconformist if you don't drink coffee... er, I mean hate AbramsTrek."

nels1031 wrote:2004’s Alexander.

I think I mentioned it here before, but its pretty impressive that they took one of histories great conquerors and made a movie as exciting as a Trigonometry class.


"Hey, you know that king famous for NEVER losing a battle? Let's show him losing battles."

OR

"We could accurately show you combat scenes such as the siege of Tyre or that awesome way that Alexander killed a combatant with a broken spear shaft after his shield arm had gotten pinned to the inside of his chariot by that same spear and the person who threw it dove onto the chariot to finish the job, OR we could spend 2/3 of the movie making sure you know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how gay everyone was." We already knew how gay everyone was, so there was no massive revelation. What is unforgivable is how certain scenes were filmed either destroying the context of the moment or butchering the facts outright. The tone of the "cross the table" line is a massive one.

Also, does it have to be one that you went in with high hopes? What about one that you were neutral on and was so bad it made you actively avoid cinema for a few months? If THAT applies, I'd like to nominate "Liebestraum"


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 09:03:57


Post by: Blackie


Not the most disappointing in history but since it's the only movie I've seen in theatres since february, and probably the last one for 2020, I list it here: TENET.

What a mess: illogic and over-complicated plot, awful visual effects, bad acting performances.

By far the worst Nolan movie ever. Cast was also pretty low, with Debicki as the only decent actress in that movie.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 10:01:28


Post by: nfe


I'm generally pretty good at managing my expectations but I let myself get pretty hyped for Prometheus and was extremely disappointed.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 11:03:26


Post by: MarkNorfolk


Avatar.

That film has no redeeming qualities what so ever.

In my opinion of course.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 11:41:50


Post by: Henry


 LordofHats wrote:
I have to say I found Hateful Eight

Both were complete and utter gak, imo. Especially Hateful Eight.

I thought about mentioning this one too. I don't particularly like Tarantino's work so didn't expect anything before seeing it. The first half of the film is utterly brilliant mood and character building. By the half way point I'm thinking this is amazing.

Then the second half of complete gak. All the good work of the first half undone and more by the wretched shallow nothingness of a director who hasn't got the talent or ideas to finish a story.

Total disappointment.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 11:43:19


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Dark Knight Rises.

Granted, I don’t hold the other two in the common reverence, but this one was just daft.

First, we see a knackered, clapped out Bruce Wayne, who has a super gammy knee due to his years of beating up the poor and vulnerable.

OK. That’s pretty sweet. Helps continue the theme of Batman being Just A Human.

Then, we see the badass knee brace to remedy said super gammy knee. Which allows someone who is, at that point, not terribly far off a cripple, to do this to a brick wall.




Pretty sweet huh? Except......it just doesn’t get referred to again.

Use it against Bane, give him an equally super gammy knee, then perhaps a tupenny one up the bracket? Heck, just boot him in the shin, playground style and shatter that bone.

But no.

Then, with his knee brace removed? TRAP DOOR PARKOUR! A feat only Bane has previously achieved......I mean....shyeah, right!

Finally....Gotham. A US city held to ransom by criminals, and nobody else tries to intervene?

Standard caveat - you enjoy your preferred films, gentle Dakkanauts. I’m having a pop at a film I found disappointing.

Oh, and Spider-Man 3. Really don’t think I need to say much more there.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 12:03:56


Post by: MarkNorfolk


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dark Knight Rises.

Granted, I don’t hold the other two in the common reverence, but this one was just daft.

First, we see a knackered, clapped out Bruce Wayne, who has a super gammy knee due to his years of beating up the poor and vulnerable.

OK. That’s pretty sweet. Helps continue the theme of Batman being Just A Human.

Then, we see the badass knee brace to remedy said super gammy knee. Which allows someone who is, at that point, not terribly far off a cripple, to do this to a brick wall.




Pretty sweet huh? Except......it just doesn’t get referred to again.

Use it against Bane, give him an equally super gammy knee, then perhaps a tupenny one up the bracket? Heck, just boot him in the shin, playground style and shatter that bone.

But no.

Then, with his knee brace removed? TRAP DOOR PARKOUR! A feat only Bane has previously achieved......I mean....shyeah, right!

Finally....Gotham. A US city held to ransom by criminals, and nobody else tries to intervene?

Standard caveat - you enjoy your preferred films, gentle Dakkanauts. I’m having a pop at a film I found disappointing.

Oh, and Spider-Man 3. Really don’t think I need to say much more there.


I know it was hard to care watching DKR but it was Talia who got out of the pit/prison thing (where once you're at the top you can just walk off - can't friends turn up with a rope ladder or winch?). The writer was trying to be clever and use the old switcheroo.

But that movie's one redeeming thing was that the villain was copying the 60's TV show by taking over the city....


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 12:45:08


Post by: Lance845


It's baffling to me that anyone enjoys any of the Dark Knight movies.

2 face looked great and behaved well for the 10 minutes we saw him on screen.

Joker was a good joker.

Scarecrow had a really good actor, but a crap mask. And was just a Ras lacky.

Bane, Ras, and Talia were all crap.

And the Worst. Batman. Ever.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 12:55:41


Post by: Pacific


MarkNorfolk wrote:Avatar.

That film has no redeeming qualities what so ever.

In my opinion of course.


Out of interest did you watch it in the cinema (IMAX etc?)

As an 'experience' I thought it was one of the best I have had at a cinema - up there with Gravity - and I haven't ever seen people coming out of the cinema and grinning like idiots in the same way before or since.

Had my experience of that film been on a flat screen (especially as it was hyped) it might have been different however.

nfe wrote:I'm generally pretty good at managing my expectations but I let myself get pretty hyped for Prometheus and was extremely disappointed.


Yes me too.. I thought probably the best of the Alien films after Aliens, but then that isn't a massive statement of quality!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:

And the Worst. Batman. Ever.


Excuse me sir but are you going on record to say that Christian Bale was a worse Batman than George Clooney or Val Kilmer?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 13:09:02


Post by: Just Tony


Val Kilmer was a way better Bruce OR Batman than Bale


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 13:09:50


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Trying to think of others, but as peeps familiar with my mental mind vomit on Dakka, I’m pretty easily pleased, and rarely terribly critical of, well, anything unless I really didn’t enjoy it.

And even then, I tend to outright just not watch stuff I really don’t have expectations for.

Though stretching things a bit? Terminator Genisys. Overall I enjoyed it, and it had some pretty interesting ideas (particularly liked the T-1000 take down). My biggest disappointment were the reviews. They all struck me more as someone who had decided the film was rubbish, then decided to watch it and find reasons why. I guess it’s just I object to reviewers watching anything with pre-conceived notions, one way or the other. Just as much as I object to accusations reviewers are paid off just because they enjoyed something someone else didn’t.

The net result was (whilst imperfect), it was unfairly slated in my opinion. Such comments included things such as “herp de derp plurrrtyhurrrrls -when they were more plot hooks intended to be explained in sequels.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 13:15:28


Post by: Crispy78


 Just Tony wrote:
Val Kilmer was a way better Bruce OR Batman than Bale


This could be a topic all on it's own...

The way I see it:
Kilmer was pretty credible as Batman but not really as Bruce Wayne.
Clooney was pretty credible as Bruce Wayne but not really as Batman. Suffered more from Batman And Robin being generally diabolically bad.

Bale is very much in the Kilmer camp - better as Batman.

Michael Keaton was the best


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 13:24:52


Post by: MarkNorfolk


 Pacific wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:Avatar.

That film has no redeeming qualities what so ever.

In my opinion of course.


Out of interest did you watch it in the cinema (IMAX etc?)

As an 'experience' I thought it was one of the best I have had at a cinema - up there with Gravity - and I haven't ever seen people coming out of the cinema and grinning like idiots in the same way before or since.



I saw a 3D version at a regular Hoyts in Australia. The story was pants and the 3d gimmick wore off in 5 minutes. Ever since then I've always opted to see the 2D version of a movie. Maybe it should've been 'IMAX only' - then I wouldn't have seen it! As an 'experience' I was glad when it was over. We certainly weren't grinning.




Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 13:46:08


Post by: Lance845


 Just Tony wrote:
Val Kilmer was a way better Bruce OR Batman than Bale


Yes.

1) He's the most lethal Batman besides Batflek.

2) He's the most lethal Batman who kills on accident. He blows up the entire ninja house in Begins on accident which kills all the ninjas except Ras including the guy he didn't want to kill. He throws 2 more ninjas off a roof by leaping at them in Begins. He accidentally throws 2 face off a building. He causes the accident that kills Talia. Says "no guns" and then flys around in a flying box shooting rockets all over the city.

3) He is the biggest idiot out of every Batman on screen cartoon or otherwise. He gets explained the plot of the movie by the bad guy at the end of every movie. He figures out nothing on his own. He has to be told every clue more or less after the fact.

4) the Dumb as feth voice.

What exactly is GOOD about Bale Batman?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 15:28:36


Post by: trexmeyer


I really like The Prestige and Inception is fun, but Nolan really comes across as being a hack in every other film.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 19:27:25


Post by: hotsauceman1


Captain America Civil War: Captain America didnt get his third movie, instead it got pushed into Avengers 2.5 That dealt with, among other characters, Black Panther and Scarlett Witch, who had more of an arc than cap.
IT: Chapter 2 really bummed me out, it seemed like it was meandering for most of the entire movie, and the noble suicide at the end, pissed me off.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 20:31:18


Post by: Easy E


Crispy78 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Val Kilmer was a way better Bruce OR Batman than Bale


This could be a topic all on it's own...

The way I see it:
Kilmer was pretty credible as Batman but not really as Bruce Wayne.
Clooney was pretty credible as Bruce Wayne but not really as Batman. Suffered more from Batman And Robin being generally diabolically bad.

Bale is very much in the Kilmer camp - better as Batman.

Michael Keaton was the best


Adam West 4 Life, yo!


Anyway, I was really looking forward to watching Starcrash as it had been mentioned as being really silly fun. I tried watching it 6 times, but fell asleep each time. The 7th time was the charm. Even watching it with MST3K version, I fell asleep during it!

That was disappointing TO ME.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 20:39:42


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


In-deed, AdamWestwas the...best batMAN ...old chum.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 21:08:29


Post by: Super Ready


Alright, we're really doing this are we? From best to worst:

Movie Batmen:
Ben Affleck (YES I WENT THERE)
Michael Keaton
Christian Bale
Val Kilmer
George Clooney

Movie Bruce Waynes:
Christian Bale
Michael Keaton
George Clooney
Ben Affleck
Val Kilmer

Tellingly, I don't feel that any of them made for a particularly bad Bruce Wayne. We're talking Kilmer being a 7/10 even at the bottom of that list.

*ahem* getting somewhat back on topic. I enjoyed DKR, but I do definitely understand that its sticking points were enough to put some off. Particularly the miracle recoveries - not just his leg, but his back later too. Gotta be the dodgiest chiropractor I've ever seen, that's for sure...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 21:27:29


Post by: Easy E


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
In-deed, AdamWestwas the...best batMAN ...old chum.


Anyone who says otherwise..... i will beAT THEM BRUTALLY!*




I was also disappointed by.... ah..... other..... movies...... ????






*Damn I love the Adam West Batman movie and series.




Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 21:44:21


Post by: MDSW


OK, going to go back a ways... I will have to say that I am pretty easily entertained and can suspend belief for 'movie plots', but the one move I was sorely disappointed in while getting very amped up for was Spielberg's Raiders II Temple of Doom - good lord, truly disappointing...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 21:52:40


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Mortal Kombat 2,

The first one was an entertaining video game adaption, but not anything that looked tricky to follow up, the video game had plenty of lore to follow for a sequel they'd proved they could put together some decent fight sequences so surely they could do the same again

so I went into the sequel with some expectations, agil movie that could entertain for an hour and a half and then be forgotten, but oh boy was I guilty of expecting way to much


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/12 23:06:03


Post by: insaniak


Mortal Kombat 2 is my candidate for the 'Worst movie with the best soundtrack' award.


It's astounding how bad it was, after the first one.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 00:26:59


Post by: Super Ready


Ohhh, man... Mortal Kombat Annihilation is truly, truly dire - but I can't call it disappointing. Not when its unique brand of garbage is *so damned entertaining*.
It's even got a worthy contender for the most hammed-up line in all of cinematic history:




Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 00:41:11


Post by: Matt Swain


 MDSW wrote:
OK, going to go back a ways... I will have to say that I am pretty easily entertained and can suspend belief for 'movie plots', but the one move I was sorely disappointed in while getting very amped up for was Spielberg's Raiders II Temple of Doom - good lord, truly disappointing...


Sweet chaos be praised! I've finally found someone who agrees with me that IJTOD stinks on ice!


On a totally different note it seems we have some bats in our belfry, or at least some Adam West fans on this thread.

For Adam West fans and just in time for halloween there's a very little known scifi horror movie he did called "Warp Speed" (A misnomer, there is no FTL or open connection to star trek)

A very low budget film from 1981 (and it shows) WS is about a spaceship that disappeared mysteriously some time ago that drifts back into earthspace (Don't expect a lot of actual science in this) with no one aboard. A psychic sensitive woman is sent aboard (Alone, of course ) to psychically read the ship and see what happened to the crew because no one left any records.

A grimdark movie before 40k made grimdark a thing. I suppose hardcore adam west fans might like it. It seems to feature something vaguely like a crude holodeck one crew member spends time in. Again, don't expect science or details here.

It's available on youtube as it seems no one bothered to maintain it's copyright.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 02:03:27


Post by: DeathKorp_Rider


It Comes at Night, my god was that the biggest waste of time I’ve ever spent at a theater. Spoiler alert: nothing came at night!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 02:43:31


Post by: ZergSmasher


I'd have to go with Prometheus. I was expecting a worthy addition to the Alien franchise and unfortunately what we got was a crappy horror movie. Yes, yes, the first Alien movie was also a horror movie, but it was a good horror movie, not the crapfest that Prometheus was. I just did not enjoy that movie at all.

(Dis)honorable mention to The Predator. They absolutely yeeted that franchise straight into the crapper.

I will chime in on the Adam West subject and say that he is definitely my favorite Batman, followed by LEGO Batman Will Arnett. I love the 1960s TV series and movie of Batman; it may be campy, but it's the good kind of campy kind of like the original Star Trek. Personally I think that William Shatner and Adam West could have switched roles and both shows would have been exactly the same as they were.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 06:15:46


Post by: Just Tony


OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:Mortal Kombat 2,

The first one was an entertaining video game adaption, but not anything that looked tricky to follow up, the video game had plenty of lore to follow for a sequel they'd proved they could put together some decent fight sequences so surely they could do the same again

so I went into the sequel with some expectations, agil movie that could entertain for an hour and a half and then be forgotten, but oh boy was I guilty of expecting way to much


insaniak wrote:Mortal Kombat 2 is my candidate for the 'Worst movie with the best soundtrack' award.


It's astounding how bad it was, after the first one.


It gave us Johnny Cage getting his neck snapped, so at least there's that.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 06:17:44


Post by: Col Hammer


MarkNorfolk wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
MarkNorfolk wrote:Avatar.

That film has no redeeming qualities what so ever.

In my opinion of course.


Out of interest did you watch it in the cinema (IMAX etc?)

As an 'experience' I thought it was one of the best I have had at a cinema - up there with Gravity - and I haven't ever seen people coming out of the cinema and grinning like idiots in the same way before or since.



I saw a 3D version at a regular Hoyts in Australia. The story was pants and the 3d gimmick wore off in 5 minutes. Ever since then I've always opted to see the 2D version of a movie. Maybe it should've been 'IMAX only' - then I wouldn't have seen it! As an 'experience' I was glad when it was over. We certainly weren't grinning.




For me, the Avatar was the best 3D effect I've seen, and still is. Because the 3D effect was for depth instead of trying to cram things towards your face…

To be honest, I cannot really see the 3D effect at movies that well, exept for the stuff like in some volcano related movie where the sparks flying around was a really great effect.

Avatar gave the scenes depth and it looked great, especially the flying scenes. Since Avatar I haven't really seen any 3D movie that I felt the effect was worth the extra money you have to pay for it. If I have a choise of 2D and 3D, I choose 2D version every time.

Storywise, I don't get the universal hate Avatar seems to generate in people. Maybe people just don't like enviromental messages and have great unrequiting love for PMC's? I dunno, I thought the story was ok.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 06:41:43


Post by: Matt Swain


More good news for the adam west fans who may have missed it. (OT but hey i like giving people here news they may like.)

His last two movie roles were voicing batman in the batman 66 animated movies "Batman return of the caped crusaders" and it's sequel "Batman vs. Two face"

These movies are faithful, respectful tributes to the 66 series and done it it's style. Starring adam west, burt ward and julie newmarr.

I've seen both and they're both actually good if you liked the original series.

I had precisely one gripe about these movies:

The penguin no longer had his trademark long cigarette holder and cigarette. Good god guys, can't you any-smoking fascists let anything go?!?! Can't you people give it a rest for one damn minute?!?!

The penguin was a bad guy, having him smoke would not be encouraging kids to smoke, especially if they had the penguin coughing badly once in a while. In fact having him smoke and near the end almost escape but suddenly stop from a coughing fit, letting batman grab him, then have bats tell him smoking is a terrible habit and he should take a stop smoking course while in prison would have been a more effective anti smoking message.

I'm not a fan of smoking or companies that make cigarettes but i am so sick of the anti smoking fanatics having to force themselves on everything they can.

Other than that these were very faithful to the original series, right down to chief O'Hara being an irish stereotype. (smoking is verbotten but ethnic stereotypes are ok. )

Oh, someone here mentioned William Shatner? He stars in the second movie as the voice of Two-Face.

As for avatar, maybe it gets ripped for being basically just dances with wolves and the last samurai redone. Or maybe because the movie was so totally predictable. I mean as soon as the main lead and the female na'vi meet you know they're going to boink and fall in love. You know her na'vi boyfriend is gonna die to get out of their way. You know he's going to save the na'vi. You know he permanently moves into his new body. It was a surprise free movie, almost as predictable as gravity.

The only criticism of avatar I will condemn was the idea it encouraged people to commit suicide as an escape from a bad situation, like being crippled. That was a bogus attack as there was a chance the guy could have his mind moved into his na'vi body so it was not actual suicide.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 07:24:59


Post by: Jadenim


I’ll stand up and be counted as an “I like Avatar” person. I don’t think it deserved to even be nominated for best picture, because it is just about every action-adventure stereotype and trope stitched together, but it’s got good performances from a great cast, well paced and edited and incredible visual design. The CGI is stunning, not just the 3D landscapes, but the mocap on the Na’avi is still some of the best character work ever done. There’s a bit at the end where Neytiri is holding human Jake in her arms and I have never been able to figure out how much of that is CG or green screen.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 07:28:24


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


The Blair Witch Project.

Just....no. Yes it was innovative for its time. But there is no real plot going on. And worse, it spawned countless shaky cam imitators.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 08:37:55


Post by: Overread


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
. And worse, it spawned countless shaky cam imitators.


I've never seen Blair Witch but my gods yes shaky cam films are a nightmare! Thankfully it mostly consigned itself to a group of horror films and they are not typically something I watch (I'm more of a Resident Evil type fan than a Blair Witch type fan when it comes to nasties and monsters)


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 09:38:55


Post by: Backfire


 Ouze wrote:

Prometheus also comes to mind, although that was just disappointing.

I thought Dunkirk looked amazing, but it actually kinda sucked. Maybe if I had known a little more about the source material, but I went in knowing nothing.


I didn't like Dunkirk precisely because I knew the source material. It did not feel like a war movie - way too clean and the plot felt naive. It had cool individual scenes, fun structure and good soundscape but overall it didn't work for me.

Prometheus was a mega disappointment yeah.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - this was before I had read the comic. But the premise was so cool and then the movie was MEGA BAD.

Spectre. I was expecting this like nuts and it was very very mediocre even at its best. I constantly waited "no the awesomeness will begin any moment now" and then the movie was over and I was like "eh".

Kingdom of Heaven - this wasn't like actively bad or anything, I was just expecting a movie with political intrigue, great characters, personal soul-searching etc. But it was really simplistic with cardboard cutout characters and average battle scenes.

Gladiator - see above. Well this was okay movie actually, I was just expecting much more. I do think it is very overrated, but that's another topic.

The Hobbit. I am an enormous Tolkien and LOTR fan. had not liked Jackson's recent work but hoped he would be able to turn it around. He did not. Other two did not disappoint me because I fully expected them to suck.

Ambush. This is late 90's Finnish war movie. It was huge hit in the theatres and previews looked very good. So my expectations were high, this will take Finnish war movies into new millenia! And then it had super-stiff dialogue and Hollywoodized action scenes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 trexmeyer wrote:
I walked out of the first Hobbit movie. I've never attempted to watch it or any of the ones in the series again.


Oh you should totally see the other two Hobbit movies, they're MUCH MUCH worse than the first!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 09:59:52


Post by: Pacific


Backfire wrote:
 Ouze wrote:

Prometheus also comes to mind, although that was just disappointing.
I thought Dunkirk looked amazing, but it actually kinda sucked. Maybe if I had known a little more about the source material, but I went in knowing nothing.

I didn't like Dunkirk precisely because I knew the source material. It did not feel like a war movie - way too clean and the plot felt naive. It had cool individual scenes, fun structure and good soundscape but overall it didn't work for me.
Prometheus was a mega disappointment yeah.
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - this was before I had read the comic. But the premise was so cool and then the movie was MEGA BAD.
Spectre. I was expecting this like nuts and it was very very mediocre even at its best. I constantly waited "no the awesomeness will begin any moment now" and then the movie was over and I was like "eh".
Kingdom of Heaven - this wasn't like actively bad or anything, I was just expecting a movie with political intrigue, great characters, personal soul-searching etc. But it was really simplistic with cardboard cutout characters and average battle scenes.
Gladiator - see above. Well this was okay movie actually, I was just expecting much more. I do think it is very overrated, but that's another topic.
The Hobbit. I am an enormous Tolkien and LOTR fan. had not liked Jackson's recent work but hoped he would be able to turn it around. He did not. Other two did not disappoint me because I fully expected them to suck.
Ambush. This is late 90's Finnish war movie. It was huge hit in the theatres and previews looked very good. So my expectations were high, this will take Finnish war movies into new millenia! And then it had super-stiff dialogue and Hollywoodized action scenes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 trexmeyer wrote:
I walked out of the first Hobbit movie. I've never attempted to watch it or any of the ones in the series again.

Oh you should totally see the other two Hobbit movies, they're MUCH MUCH worse than the first!


I am sounding like a stuck record but did you see Dunkirk in the cinema? It was a really awesome experience - the soundtrack, the effects, the way it was filmed. There were a couple of silly bits (Tom Hardy's perpetual gliding Spitfire) but I thought it was a really well made film and I think more than anything else has made me feel like I was there. I know it was unpopular with a lot of people because it wasn't particularly glorious and something that is regarded as a 'defeat' seems overly pessimistic. But, in my mind it showed the individual acts of valour and sacrifice and was much more poignant than Mel Gibson stood on a hill with a machine gun.

Kingdom of Heaven - I thought Orlando Bloom was the wrong lead for that film, otherwise it was great.
Overread wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
. And worse, it spawned countless shaky cam imitators.


I've never seen lair Witch but my gods yes shaky cam films are a nightmare! Thankfully it mostly consigned itself to a group of horror films and they are not typically something I watch (I'm more of a Resident Evil type fan than a Blair Witch type fan when it comes to nasties and monsters)


I agree about Blair Witch. The only mitigating thing for that is I think if I had seen it in the US, and it was when all of the viral advertising (and comments of "is it real life?") advertising campaign coincided with the release of the film and was certainly quite clever - I think if I had been in the US and seen it under those circumstances then I can understand why it caused such a stir. Watching it years later on Netflix, when the hand-held cam has been done to death, it really hasn't aged very well though.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 10:30:15


Post by: Gitzbitah


Yes, Pacific, Blair Witch worked as an experience more than any movie I've ever seen. The hype was done in an age before viral marketing- this was when Pepsi had you mail in points for prizes. So all these rumors were circulating about something that may or may not have happened, and then it was filmed as excerpts from a film the victims had made (which was an all new concept). It was terrifying at the time.

That being said, it is absolutely one of those situations that can't be recreated. If you knew of its legend and went back and watched it today, it would definitely be terribly disappointing.

It was like the first season of Survivor- at the time, we legitimately thought they had marooned a dozen ordinary people on an island and they might starve, incapacitate themselves, or you know, do anything but be a reality sitcom on a beach. Now of course we know better- it takes a Fyre festival to do that.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 10:44:07


Post by: tauist


The most recent Ghost In The Shell movie. Makes a flocking mockery out of the original comics by Shirow Masamune. Its like one of those hollywood adaptations/remakes which obliviously ignore the subtle nuances which make the original a masterpiece and just turn that ish to generic cyberpunk special fx orgy. Yawn

I can only hope they leave Appleseed alone.. Its suffered enough already.

If there's one production team I think could be trusted to do justice to the Shirow masterpieces, it'd be the team behind The Expanse.. They have the right idea about what mature scifi is about.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 12:22:45


Post by: Momotaro


A friend was in charge of getting the videos for a teenage party back in the 80s - so you can imagine it was going to be horror and porn vids.

He got some pirated tapes in blank boxes. One of them was called "Genevieve". Sounds like something French and filthy, right?

Of course, film aficionados will know that it's a 50s British comedy about a car rally. Genevieve is the car...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 12:58:45


Post by: Jadenim


I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; go find a copy of the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven, it’s a totally different experience.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 13:04:53


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


@Matt Swain, thanks for the heads-up on the Bat Movies. I’ll have to check them out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The Blair Witch Project.

Just....no. Yes it was innovative for its time. But there is no real plot going on. And worse, it spawned countless shaky cam imitators.


No plot, sure, but lots going on. For me, Blair Witch was a very effective horror movie.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 14:56:19


Post by: Matt Swain


Eh, blair witch was an original movie, I'll give it that.

I can also say that cloverfield was an attempt at an original movie.

But oh dear lord did the cloverfield paradox suck! As far as I'm concerned it's so bad it makes the BWP bad for leading to it.

And yes, the cloverfield paradox was a supermegaultrahypergiga disappointment.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 15:36:19


Post by: Frazzled


 Lance845 wrote:
The Predator.

How the feth did that movie ever get made?


Wait, the classic original that started the chain, or the one that came out a few years ago?

'Cause if you're dissin the Schwarz, we're gonna have problems.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 15:36:26


Post by: gorgon


 Gitzbitah wrote:
Yes, Pacific, Blair Witch worked as an experience more than any movie I've ever seen. The hype was done in an age before viral marketing- this was when Pepsi had you mail in points for prizes. So all these rumors were circulating about something that may or may not have happened, and then it was filmed as excerpts from a film the victims had made (which was an all new concept). It was terrifying at the time.

That being said, it is absolutely one of those situations that can't be recreated. If you knew of its legend and went back and watched it today, it would definitely be terribly disappointing.


That put it pretty much perfectly. You can't replicate the conditions. As I've said, I saw it opening night and there were people in the theater who thought it might be real.

It was like the first season of Survivor- at the time, we legitimately thought they had marooned a dozen ordinary people on an island and they might starve, incapacitate themselves, or you know, do anything but be a reality sitcom on a beach. Now of course we know better- it takes a Fyre festival to do that.


I think that the first season of Survivor -- like the first season of The Real World (dating myself here) -- had some interesting stuff going on. Then the TV executives and creatives really doubled down on looks and hookups and scripted drama, turning it into a pretty boring formula.





Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 15:51:15


Post by: LordofHats


 Frazzled wrote:
Wait, the classic original that started the chain, or the one that came out a few years ago?


Def the new one. The original film is just called Predator. The new movie - so lazily put together you can point a finger at where the script rewrites and film reshoots happened - is The Predator.

And it was terrible for sure.

Can't say I was disappointed though. I expected it to be awful. Predator is a great character, but I feel like everyone who makes movies with um approaches the character all wrong; Predator is schi-fi Rambo, John McClane, Robocop, whatever, and the heroes of a Predator movie are the people who would be cannon fodder in a Rambo movie, Die Hard, or Robocop. Predator films have worked best when they're made like role-reversed action movies rather than mediocre horror movies with action.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 15:57:59


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Predator, as with it’s pop culture pal, Alien, is a very, very difficult thing to make sequels for.

I mean, the first movie works because it takes a good while for us to properly see the bugger. Same with Alien.

Predator 2? OK, the change of scenery makes for an interesting, and fairly satisfying, sequel. We also learn a wee bit more about their culture.

Predators? Again, switches it up with humans being dumped into an intergalactic Reseve. Doesn’t quite land, but at least it tried something new.

The Predator? This time, there’s another one. Only this time. Instead of a face. It’s got Four Arses.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 16:10:01


Post by: Pacific


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

The Predator? This time, there’s another one. Only this time. Instead of a face. It’s got Four Arses.


haha, brilliant

Honestly the only good thing I can say about the film is that it made me laugh, First the girl from IGN chasing after the Predator, the bit where the Predator had been in the back of the car and put severed arm through the thumbs up to the driver etc.

But it's a bit sad that you've got what is effectively a 'Carry on Predator-ing' of the first 2 films.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 20:50:36


Post by: Mr Morden


Godzilla (2014)

I enjoy monster movies - this was absolutely awful in every respect from the cringeworthy "characters" - Slamming a little door to keep the massive wave of radiation in to the constant obession with keeping monsters off screen to a fat stupid Zilla swimming with his warship friends.

Not a single good thing about that POS film - it could have only been worse if Christopher Nolan had been involved.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 20:57:38


Post by: Cryptek of Awesome


Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Huge fan of Conan and quite like Jason Momoa - I wanted this to be good so bad and I hated it so so much. Probably more than a casual movie-goer because I was so invested.
Too much shoddy CGI, cheesy jokes, pointless travelling, paper thin comradery.. ugh


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 21:08:57


Post by: Big Mac


There are quite a few over the years, but the most recent come to mind is 'Mulan', the trailer was pretty awesome, then the movie sank hard...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 21:21:21


Post by: LunarSol


Tough one. It's pretty rare that I go in with both high expectations and find something that manages to fail to meet them without failing so hard to be an entertaining trainwreck.

The most recent is Rise of Skywalker for me, which is weird, because I didn't have a lot of faith in JJ, but still manages to somehow be the worst of both worlds to get stuck with. Either stick to their guns from TLJ or go with a simple crowd pleaser; honestly I don't really care. Instead we got the "Into Darkness" of the Star Wars cannon to go out on.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 21:42:38


Post by: Voss


 Pacific wrote:

I am sounding like a stuck record but did you see Dunkirk in the cinema? It was a really awesome experience - the soundtrack, the effects, the way it was filmed. There were a couple of silly bits (Tom Hardy's perpetual gliding Spitfire) but I thought it was a really well made film and I think more than anything else has made me feel like I was there. I know it was unpopular with a lot of people because it wasn't particularly glorious and something that is regarded as a 'defeat' seems overly pessimistic. But, in my mind it showed the individual acts of valour and sacrifice and was much more poignant than Mel Gibson stood on a hill with a machine gun.


I did. It was overly loud with terrible sound editing (even vets of the actual battle complained that it was louder than the real battle) and very, very dull. More a comedy of errors without the comedy or any reason to care about the characters as they're passed along failed and emotionless escape attempts and finally end up exactly where you expect.

By far the most moving moment was Kenneth Branagh standing at the end of the dock clearly having an internal soliloquy on the subject of 'What the hell am I doing? I'm better than this!'

---
the Mel Gibson comparison is a weird strawman for an argument nobody raised.

It definitely qualifies as one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a theatre in the last few years. Not for being objectively terrible but just for doing nothing of any note. Its a forgettable, not-accurate-enough portrayal of a moment of history that could have been served better, laboriously going over the same ground from different perspectives but not handling any of the details well (despite the details being exactly what that sort of laborious style lives or dies by).


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 21:58:03


Post by: Momotaro


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only this time. Instead of a face. It’s got Four Arses.


If it also had a retractable leg and a terrible fear of stamps, I might have enjoyed the film.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 22:30:55


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Momotaro wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only this time. Instead of a face. It’s got Four Arses.


If it also had a retractable leg and a terrible fear of stamps, I might have enjoyed the film.


'kin hell

I'm sure we've utterly baffled a fair proportion of non Brit dakka there Ted

Adding Bladerunner 2049, had three runs at it and still unsure about it so think I'll side with disappointing


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 22:46:35


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


Endgame. 10 odd years of set up for an overly long, boring movie. Infinity war was at least fun in what it did.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/13 22:57:08


Post by: Matt Swain


The last predator had 4 asses for a face? Good god keep it away from the beans then!

As for me, the last godzilla movie was just awful, and i mean it was beyond disappointing.

Now I know I'll get people ing and moaning at me, but the end just made it total to me. The reason being it was a perfectly american ending. (yes yes people will call that too political, well, you're wrong.)

It was a cultural thing. The human race ing up the world with pollution, and the titans were beginning to wake up maybe because of that. The people who wanted to fight what humanity was doing were portrayed as stupid evil nuts who woke up ghidorah to fight pollution. They acknowledge a problem, then make the only people wanting to solve it the bad guys.

So our buddy godzilla saves the world and the rest of the kaiju (not titans) start fixing the world for us. They reboot the amazon, clean up pollution, bring dead species back to life, their droppings become a new green superfuel, etc. We don't have to change our awful ways at all, we don't have to clean things up, stop polluting, etc. No, the giant monsters will do everything for us so we don't have to change anything.

What a perfectly american ending. Keep driving the SUVs and wasting plastic by the ton, everyone. it's ok, the kaiju are here to fix the world for us! American consumers don;t have to change anything, american businesses don't have to change anything.

To be honest, the ending made me ashamed of how america handled the whole godzilla concept.

So that's one reason I found the last godzilla movie to be a titan-ic disappointment and almost an embarrassment to america. As far as godzilla movies go i'd say it was one of the worst when you compare it to the message of the original. The original was that the monsters were the results of our actions and we need to change them. Now the monsters are here to save us from the consequences of our actions and fix things for us.

Ugh. Not just disappointing but embarrassing. And that's a slap at american culture, not politics.

Superman 4 was just plain terrible and stupider than the comic books of the day. Absolutely awful looking effects, stupid plotline, bad acting and just one WTFGIMMEABREAK moment after another.





Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/14 00:25:11


Post by: MDSW


I have another recent stinker - Greyhound.

Looked awesome, with Tom Hanks, Navy WWII, how could it miss? Well, let's rush through it, like we ran out of money paying a probably hefty salary for TH. The worst for me was all of the squandered opportunities to invoke some real suspense - what a miserable 'love' interest backstory - why show it at all? What was going on under the water in the subs? What about the other allied navy ships or convoy ships? Why have the sub commander taunting without using it for real impact? Maybe there is a director's cut with more elements, but it was just so flat...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/14 00:27:07


Post by: Backfire


 Pacific wrote:

I am sounding like a stuck record but did you see Dunkirk in the cinema? It was a really awesome experience - the soundtrack, the effects, the way it was filmed. There were a couple of silly bits (Tom Hardy's perpetual gliding Spitfire) but I thought it was a really well made film and I think more than anything else has made me feel like I was there. I know it was unpopular with a lot of people because it wasn't particularly glorious and something that is regarded as a 'defeat' seems overly pessimistic. But, in my mind it showed the individual acts of valour and sacrifice and was much more poignant than Mel Gibson stood on a hill with a machine gun.


I did see it in a theatre and I did love the soundscape and thought the parallel storytelling was a neat and workable idea. Scenes in the Spitfire's cockpit were fun claustrophobic - really got the feeling of being inside a cramped war machine, like in 'Das Boot'. But the characters were bad, very simplistic and often idealized one-note characters. The war it was supposed to depict did not seem believable. The movie begins with a guy running from the Germans who shoot at him, he goes 10 metres and is on a beach and suddenly Germans are nowhere to be seen (until the end when they suddenly start shooting because the plot says so). Everything is clean, there are almost no bodies (actual Dunkirk beach was littered with corpses), there is no artillery, no distant rumble of war, not a single shot from an AA gun at the German planes constantly making attacks. It didn't feel at all like I was watching war, it felt like I was watching a play on a stage.

 Pacific wrote:

Kingdom of Heaven - I thought Orlando Bloom was the wrong lead for that film, otherwise it was great.


It might have worked if he would have been an idealistic kid going to this Holy War, instead he was this cynic guy forced in to it. He was just the wrong guy for it.
Supposedly the directors' cut is much better, but my biggest disappointment were the lame characters and weak dialogue so I think there's limit what it can do.

 Pacific wrote:

I agree about Blair Witch. The only mitigating thing for that is I think if I had seen it in the US, and it was when all of the viral advertising (and comments of "is it real life?") advertising campaign coincided with the release of the film and was certainly quite clever - I think if I had been in the US and seen it under those circumstances then I can understand why it caused such a stir. Watching it years later on Netflix, when the hand-held cam has been done to death, it really hasn't aged very well though.


Yes, I liked the BWP when I watched it back in the day, saw some of the viral stuff before it and so on. It was groundbreaking, even genius. Now when it has been copied and parodied gazillion of times and 'found footage' is a tired cliche, it loses nearly everything which made it intriguing at the time and without the context it's just boring and annoying.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/14 06:09:09


Post by: Col Hammer


The newest Hellboy movie. The Hollywood obsession of making every movie of this type as the origin movie of the character.

Let's take the final storyline (where the Hellboy dies) and make it as the origin storyline! WTF?

I was fine with the new HB actor (altough Ron Perlman rocked as HB in the previous movies), my disappointmen was the plot that just stomped all over the actual HB plotline. You already have a great plotline in the form of the graphic novel series. Why do you need to change it for the movie.
The fans of HB want to see the HB plotline in the movie… Why change it just for the sake of changing it?

And this movie was advertised that Mike Mignola had approved it and was part of the team behind the movie.
Maybe that is why I had such high expectations of it?

I don't usually get so invested in movies that I get disappointed when they fail. I just shrug it off and move on.
But this one I remember being pretty po'd about.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/14 08:06:16


Post by: Pacific


Voss wrote:
 Pacific wrote:

I am sounding like a stuck record but did you see Dunkirk in the cinema? It was a really awesome experience - the soundtrack, the effects, the way it was filmed. There were a couple of silly bits (Tom Hardy's perpetual gliding Spitfire) but I thought it was a really well made film and I think more than anything else has made me feel like I was there. I know it was unpopular with a lot of people because it wasn't particularly glorious and something that is regarded as a 'defeat' seems overly pessimistic. But, in my mind it showed the individual acts of valour and sacrifice and was much more poignant than Mel Gibson stood on a hill with a machine gun.


I did. It was overly loud with terrible sound editing (even vets of the actual battle complained that it was louder than the real battle) and very, very dull. More a comedy of errors without the comedy or any reason to care about the characters as they're passed along failed and emotionless escape attempts and finally end up exactly where you expect.

By far the most moving moment was Kenneth Branagh standing at the end of the dock clearly having an internal soliloquy on the subject of 'What the hell am I doing? I'm better than this!'

---
the Mel Gibson comparison is a weird strawman for an argument nobody raised.

It definitely qualifies as one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a theatre in the last few years. Not for being objectively terrible but just for doing nothing of any note. Its a forgettable, not-accurate-enough portrayal of a moment of history that could have been served better, laboriously going over the same ground from different perspectives but not handling any of the details well (despite the details being exactly what that sort of laborious style lives or dies by).


Sorry I mentioned Mel Gibson as an example of a glorification of what war represents (absolutely nothing to do with anything you had said). The Platoon portrayal to the John Wayne shootin' bad guys, with Dunkirk being more of the former.

Fair enough - we can't all like the same thing !

I do think some effort was made with accuracy though, even though certain bits of it were very much dramatisations. If you read this account from a veteran that was there for example https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/dunkirk-film-premiere-christopher-nolan-veteran-tears-watch-harry-styles-cillian-murphy-tom-hardy-cinema-a7856456.html

Finally - I think it's very possible the film means more to me as a British person than for anyone from another country (apologies if I am wrong there - just going off the little flag on the profile!) This event was very much a story told to me many times growing up, in history classrooms, in documentaries and in books so that it is part of the British culture and psyche.
I know that doesn't mean everything, but it made this film especially powerful as it was something I had read about many times, to the point it put shivers down my spine as I was watching it. But, I do recognise that it's very much a subjective thing and the film won't have appealed to everyone.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/14 11:18:59


Post by: Mr Morden


In my view a much more exciting, well crafted film about Dunkirk with actual characters and a plot is the 1958 film - which although "of its Time" succeeds in these areas where the Nolan film fails.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/19 13:33:59


Post by: RiTides


 Jadenim wrote:
Tenet; I was so looking forward to another cool, slick sci-fi thriller like Inception, but the plot exposition was poor and marred by the worst sound editing I have ever experienced. I was literally sat there wishing I could turn the subtitles on!

Oh man, I had thought it was just me about wanting subtitles lol!

Unlike a few folks in this thread though, I absolutely LOVED the movie! So much so, I saw it twice paying waaaaaaay closer attention to dialogue the second time.

Much like Inception, seeing it a second time explains so much. I thought it was just brilliant, and loved the two main male protaganist characters in particular.

Folks should definitely give this a shot when it releases (possibly with subtitles ). Much like Blade Runner 2049, this might not slay the box office but is just incredibly well done for its type imo.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/19 18:17:52


Post by: Jadenim


Don’t get me wrong, there was an awful lot of good stuff in that film and I am looking forward to home release, but that’s why it was so disappointing; the sound design ruined it for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I love Blade Runner 2049 and don’t understand why it didn’t perform well, given it was a spot-on sequel in terms of tone and theme.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 02:41:45


Post by: Grimskul


Suicide Squad (the first one) for me, because at the time it seemed like something different from DC for once and the trailers seemed interesting enough. It was one of the few movies where my friends and I were watching halfway through, looked at each other and flat out said, "This movie kinda sucks". We didn't walk out since we were almost done at that point, but we spent the after-movie event ragging on how confusingly bad it was. It's only gotten worse when they've shown through 2 separate DC animated movies with the suicide squad that had way better writing and acting.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 06:06:50


Post by: trexmeyer


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Endgame. 10 odd years of set up for an overly long, boring movie. Infinity war was at least fun in what it did.


I don't particularly care for comics, but I'll spare everyone the reasoning.

Despite that, I loved the MCU up until Endgame. The onscreen reimagining of the characters was excellent. The way everything was tied together and built upon all the way up until Endgame was brilliant.
When Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are arguably your biggest missteps as a franchise you've done well. Then Endgame came out and it was a hot mess.

I think ten years from now people will look back at it as the turning point in quality for the MCU.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 07:37:53


Post by: Pacific


 Jadenim wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, there was an awful lot of good stuff in that film and I am looking forward to home release, but that’s why it was so disappointing; the sound design ruined it for me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I love Blade Runner 2049 and don’t understand why it didn’t perform well, given it was a spot-on sequel in terms of tone and theme.


I hadn't realised that BR2049 hadn't done well, really surprising. I wonder if it came out alongside some other releases and badly timed?

But then I think the first one was even more of a commercial disaster and has gone on to cult status.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 08:50:32


Post by: Mr Morden


 Pacific wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, there was an awful lot of good stuff in that film and I am looking forward to home release, but that’s why it was so disappointing; the sound design ruined it for me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I love Blade Runner 2049 and don’t understand why it didn’t perform well, given it was a spot-on sequel in terms of tone and theme.


I hadn't realised that BR2049 hadn't done well, really surprising. I wonder if it came out alongside some other releases and badly timed?

But then I think the first one was even more of a commercial disaster and has gone on to cult status.



I enjoyed quite a bit of the new Bladerunner film and like the first - it looked great BUT

I was far more interested in the AI/replicant relationship than the Decker/child story and I found the ending a bit of a let down.
For me it was far far too long.

Quite a bit of it did not make sense and because it was slow you had time to think about it.

Making replicants surely can;t take as long as breeding them - there was no real reason why - and given most people live in poverty what are you trying to replace - a cheapo labour force? That kinda damaged one of the central pillars - was the main bad guy just supposed to be falling into insanity?


Despite that, I loved the MCU up until Endgame. The onscreen reimagining of the characters was excellent. The way everything was tied together and built upon all the way up until Endgame was brilliant.
When Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are arguably your biggest missteps as a franchise you've done well. Then Endgame came out and it was a hot mess.


Interesting - what elements did you not like - I really enjoyed the attention to detail, the fact that it was still (like all MCU films thus far) about people, that they took the time to give so many people clever moments in the film.

...and the final fight scene was really good.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 09:00:35


Post by: insaniak


Yeah, I enjoyed the hell out of Endgame. It was certainly not as polished as some of the previous films, but it had an awful lot of ground to cover.

On the disappointment front, I finally got around to checking out the sequel to Cube the other day. So very not as good as the first one. But because I'm a glutton for punishment, and on a bit of a 'dodgy sci fi' kick, I then went and watched the prequel (Cube Zero) and was pleasantly surprised by how much like the first one it was, while still being a very different take on the premise.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 09:02:33


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Cube Zero is definitely superior to Hypercube.

Original is a stone cold classic of course. A standout example of how to do a lot with very little.

Cube Zero works perfectly as a prequel.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 09:23:41


Post by: Pacific


Thanks for the tip about Cube Zero - will take a look! I enjoyed the original, was a really good idea and had some great (and disgusting) set pieces.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 09:40:55


Post by: insaniak


Cube Zero is certainly on point for disgusting deaths...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 11:03:11


Post by: Matt Swain


If you like the "cube" movies you might like a dark little one I reviewed here recently called "Domain" from 2018.

I wasn't too fond of it but i didn't really like the cube movies either.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 13:58:05


Post by: Dysartes


 insaniak wrote:
Cube Zero is certainly on point for disgusting deaths...


Isn't Cube Zero the sugar-free version of Cube?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 15:06:54


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Judge Dredd.

To be fair, that was my initial impression.

See, the Stallone effort came out just as I was really getting into Dredd, but before I’d read much of the historical stuff.

They nailed the look, yes. But got so much wrong it irritated a little edgelord purist me.....at the time.

I’ve now read about as much Dredd as anyone, and in particular all the early stuff (thanks, Hachette!).

And y’know, they managed to blend up a fair few classic strips into a single movie. So whilst still no great, my opinion has softened, and it’s my Guilty Pleasures list.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 15:51:53


Post by: Easy E


The Fountain

I expected something a bit more profound than a Disney-fied Circle of Life theme.... but no.

There were essentially three divergent story lines from different timelines, that all lead into one big theme.

I was expecting something more from it, and it ended up making me very mad!




Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 16:55:12


Post by: Vaktathi


With regards to the Endgame big bash, for my own part, the end fight scene was more Ready Player One pop-culture extravaganza than anything else, it felt like it was about mashing as many characters on screen as possible in a giant combat that made zero sense to fight the way it was fought with ultimately meaningless Deus Ex Machina events all over the place (e.g. everything about Captain Marvel in that fight). That said, for many viewers, a pop-culture character mis-mash extravaganza was exactly what they were there for admittedly, but so much of it was narratively irrelevant and forced that it was hard, for me at least, to keep my suspension of disbelief in check.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 17:02:51


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


So by Captain Marvel, you mean the character already shown to be fundamentally invulnerable, more than capable of simply flying through enemy ships, and generally being quipped?

Who eventually shows up to...erm....be fundamentally invulnerable, fly through and wreck the enemy’s sold capital ship, and be quite quippy?

Granted, the whole “don’t worry, she’s got help” felt superfluous, because it was equivalent to the Justice League saying they’ve got Superman’s back.....

But....really?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 17:20:24


Post by: Vaktathi


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So by Captain Marvel, you mean the character already shown to be fundamentally invulnerable, more than capable of simply flying through enemy ships, and generally being quipped?

Who eventually shows up to...erm....be fundamentally invulnerable, fly through and wreck the enemy’s sold capital ship, and be quite quippy?

Granted, the whole “don’t worry, she’s got help” felt superfluous, because it was equivalent to the Justice League saying they’ve got Superman’s back.....

But....really?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "quippy" or "quipped" exactly.

However, my issue was basically with the character showing up to neutralize a threat that was really kind of hamfistedly inserted in there specifically for the character to defeat for the sake of making an appearance. Had you cut Captain Marvel's appearance completely, there's really nothing of narrative value that Endgame loses.

Granted, I had that same opinion of the character in their own movie (within the larger MCU, you could have just cut CM from that flick and just had it be a Nick Fury origin story and it would fit just as well within the larger narrative and be no less capable as a stand-alone movie really), but Endgame as a whole felt that way for a lot of stuff, it wasn't unique to Captain Marvel.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/20 22:02:28


Post by: Mr Morden


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So by Captain Marvel, you mean the character already shown to be fundamentally invulnerable, more than capable of simply flying through enemy ships, and generally being quipped?

Who eventually shows up to...erm....be fundamentally invulnerable, fly through and wreck the enemy’s sold capital ship, and be quite quippy?

Granted, the whole “don’t worry, she’s got help” felt superfluous, because it was equivalent to the Justice League saying they’ve got Superman’s back.....

But....really?


One of my fav bits of that glorious film was her showing up and kicking ass.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 00:34:37


Post by: Casualty


 Easy E wrote:
The Fountain

I expected something a bit more profound than a Disney-fied Circle of Life theme.... but no.

There were essentially three divergent story lines from different timelines, that all lead into one big theme.

I was expecting something more from it, and it ended up making me very mad!


And a score that good warranted a movie that deserved it, imho


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 02:23:54


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Casualty wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
The Fountain

I expected something a bit more profound than a Disney-fied Circle of Life theme.... but no.

There were essentially three divergent story lines from different timelines, that all lead into one big theme.

I was expecting something more from it, and it ended up making me very mad!


And a score that good warranted a movie that deserved it, imho


The score is phenomenal, for sure.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 04:10:19


Post by: trexmeyer


 Vaktathi wrote:
With regards to the Endgame big bash, for my own part, the end fight scene was more Ready Player One pop-culture extravaganza than anything else, it felt like it was about mashing as many characters on screen as possible in a giant combat that made zero sense to fight the way it was fought with ultimately meaningless Deus Ex Machina events all over the place (e.g. everything about Captain Marvel in that fight). That said, for many viewers, a pop-culture character mis-mash extravaganza was exactly what they were there for admittedly, but so much of it was narratively irrelevant and forced that it was hard, for me at least, to keep my suspension of disbelief in check.


The final fight scene was a hot mess. The girl power moment was horrific pandering that could have easily been done naturally and better.

@MrMorden

Everything up until the time jump was fine. I hated everything after that. They could have gone in so many directions even with that opening and went with the laziest, pandering story they could have possibly come up with.

I wish they had done something along the lines of a figuring out how to defeat Infinity Gauntlet Thanos before tracking him down and defeating him.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 04:32:54


Post by: cody.d.


I'd have to go with a movie by the name of Patient Zero. Was hoping for a fun, not too serious zombie movie ala the Dawn of the Dead remake. I found it to be one of the most incredibly bland, by the numbers movies I've ever seen. Like, how does something manage to be so offensively uninteresting. Take Day of the dead with it's tight quarters bunker theme, take out the interesting cast, the charming effects, decent if silly writing and bam. You got patient Zero.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 04:50:33


Post by: LordofHats


 trexmeyer wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
With regards to the Endgame big bash, for my own part, the end fight scene was more Ready Player One pop-culture extravaganza than anything else, it felt like it was about mashing as many characters on screen as possible in a giant combat that made zero sense to fight the way it was fought with ultimately meaningless Deus Ex Machina events all over the place (e.g. everything about Captain Marvel in that fight). That said, for many viewers, a pop-culture character mis-mash extravaganza was exactly what they were there for admittedly, but so much of it was narratively irrelevant and forced that it was hard, for me at least, to keep my suspension of disbelief in check.


The final fight scene was a hot mess. The girl power moment was horrific pandering that could have easily been done naturally and better.

@MrMorden

Everything up until the time jump was fine. I hated everything after that. They could have gone in so many directions even with that opening and went with the laziest, pandering story they could have possibly come up with.

I wish they had done something along the lines of a figuring out how to defeat Infinity Gauntlet Thanos before tracking him down and defeating him.


It felt to me like there was a board meeting and it went like this:

"Okay, ideas for the final fight. Jim said Captain America uses the hammer and I love it."

"All the girls could team up for a girl power moment."

"Love it."

"Spider-man can make quips."

"Naturally."

"Captain Marvel can come out of the sky and just smash the space ship, we need her for the next phase gotta build her up."

"Forward thinking."

"I think these are all great ideas. How do we want to structure the scenes so it all makes sense in sequence?"

*throws that guy out the window*

"Anymore ideas?"

*I don't think any of the bits of the final fight were bad, but I'm definitely in the 'the way these scenes were put together seems really random and forced' crowd. They really could have fixed the problem with some forethought.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 07:39:47


Post by: Pacific


 Easy E wrote:
The Fountain

I expected something a bit more profound than a Disney-fied Circle of Life theme.... but no.

There were essentially three divergent story lines from different timelines, that all lead into one big theme.

I was expecting something more from it, and it ended up making me very mad!




I saw that film at a 24hr cinema at about 1.30 in the morning. Couple of drunk guys in the cinema that looked like they had already fallen asleep before it even started were the only people there, I think that I was probably in about the right head-space to appreciate it.. Definitely a very odd film !


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 08:19:39


Post by: Henry


 LordofHats wrote:
*I don't think any of the bits of the final fight were bad, but I'm definitely in the 'the way these scenes were put together seems really random and forced' crowd. They really could have fixed the problem with some forethought.

End Game was definitely a let down after Infinity War - not majorly disappointing, just nowhere near as good.

The end fight reminded me of a 90s cartoon superhero introduction sequence. Remember the X-Men introduction? We get 1.5 seconds of Wolverine doing his snikkt thing, 1.5 seconds of Storm doing weather things, 1.5 seconds of Xavier touching his fingers to his head, etc. No reason, no contribution to the story, just a feel good montage of the characters doing their character thing. Very little of it actually added anything.

The biggest disapointment, for me, from End Game was how they completely invalidated one of the biggest set ups from Infinity War. Hulk is near invincible. He can get beaten up but he'll come back angrier. Thanos could click his fingers as many times as he liked, each time removing half the universe's population until there was only he and Hulk left, click his fingers one more time and my money would be on the green guy surviving.

Then Hulk finds the one thing it can't smash and is scared. That's amazing set up. I was excited to see what they do with it. And they go with a crappy café scene and Banner now has the strength but none of the anti-social-smash-everything-in-sight issues of the green guy? What the hell was the point of Hulk in Infinity War if his fear gets completely bypassed in the sequal? That café scene was a serious WTF moment when I saw it in the cinema.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 09:38:52


Post by: MarkNorfolk


Yeah - the Hulk having his movie trilogy 'off camera' is a failing of the MCU. The merging of the Banner/Hulk persona would have a great moment in a time of crisis - like the end fight.

Although, interestingly, we get a few hints that 'the beast' wasn't too far away. 'Take your hands off me' and 'Lady, I ain't askin' ' felt like violence was the preferred method of conflict resolution.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 10:44:00


Post by: Kayback


 LordofHats wrote:

The final fight scene was a hot mess. The girl power moment was horrific pandering that could have easily been done naturally and better.


Pretty much this. The "girl power"stance failed because a move like that is meant to indicate a coming together of story-lines, most of those people hadn't even MET. It was literally "They got va-jay-jay they in the shot" move.

Overall the movie was crap. Time travel is so bad of a story line and invalidates anything. Problem? Go back in time and fix. I *LOVED* Captain wielding Mjolnir. I know I was meant to but that didn't mean it wasn't cool.



Honestly disappointing movie through and through? Solo. I loved Rogue One and it was predictable as hell. Solo was just stupid.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 11:31:35


Post by: Blackie


Endgame was too long, first 90 min basically nothing happens.

The worst scene is the clash between Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner when they had to decide who was going to sacrifice. It was supposed to be dramatic and intense, but ended up absolutely comical.

On the other hand Fat Thor was a huge bonus to the movie.

All-star movies are never easy to do though, it's hard to merge a solid plot with the necessity of giving appropriate space to everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Henry wrote:


The biggest disapointment, for me, from End Game was how they completely invalidated one of the biggest set ups from Infinity War.


The biggest disappointment for me is that End Game had the perfect ending for the franchise. Not a happy handing but definitely an epic one. "Bad" guys should win sometimes, even if I think that Thanos was actually in the right and Iron Man was the real villain of the MCU since Civil War.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 12:02:09


Post by: Mr Morden


even if I think that Thanos was actually in the right


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.

Needs to be more than culling people every so often - but then he was a complete nutjob

Endgame is one of my fav MCU movies so I am biased.

More of an issue is Dr Strange not just chopping Thanos arm off with a portal in previous film to get the glove - hell - chop his head off.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 12:58:39


Post by: Pacific


I think the intent of Endgame was to be a love letter to all of the previous MCU films. Agree the time travel was a bit clunky but it was a great way of reminding everyone, especially the casual audience, what had happened over that past decade and served as a kind of 'greatest hits'

The final battle was essentially a royal rumble - I guess in the same way it needed to be in there, but as lots of people have pointed out there are far better individual fight scenes in other movies in the series.

Then you have the conclusion of story arcs, most notably with Tony Stark, who has transformed over the course of the series from being self serving in Iron Man to someone who becomes ultimately selfless, and gives his life for the people around him.

I did at least like that Thanos had some kind of philosophy behind what he was doing, even if it was morally repugnant and arguably illogical. That immediately places it above a lot of other fictional megalomaniacs you can think of (*cough* the Horus Heresy *cough*), added depth to his character, and the prospect of the indiscriminate genocide he wanted to carry out (being so utterly terrifying) added an enormous emotional weight to the end of Infinity War.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 13:04:03


Post by: Blackie


 Mr Morden wrote:


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.


The opposite of zero result. He could have saved the universe for centuries. But I can agree about the percentage, he should have aimed to wiping 90% of the population, not just 50%. Still billions of lives in that 10%.

Why devastated societies? We had devastating world war wars and societies managed to re-born in a few years: Germany was in ashes in 1945, but one of the wealthier countries in the world 50 years later.

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.

It's the same concept that moves Mass Effect's villains, even if their harvest wasn't random.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 13:14:05


Post by: Lance845


I think it's also important to note that the time travel is going to be a step forward into future stories. Dr Doom has a classic piece of tech known as his time platform. Well... the Avengers basically built a time platform.

Now that Time Travel has been done Kang The Conqueror can show up without having to introduce the concept of time travel.

Like Dr Strange introducing magic the time travel in this movie is a stepping stone forward both in parallel realities and time travel for classic marvel schtick going forward.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 13:40:23


Post by: Mr Morden


 Blackie wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.


The opposite of zero result. He could have saved the universe for centuries. But I can agree about the percentage, he should have aimed to wiping 90% of the population, not just 50%. Still billions of lives in that 10%.

Why devastated societies? We had devastating world war wars and societies managed to re-born in a few years: Germany was in ashes in 1945, but one of the wealthier countries in the world 50 years later.

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.

It's the same concept that moves Mass Effect's villains, even if their harvest wasn't random.

He acheives nothing other than death, misery and pain in all his time - even the snap does not stop anything - no one knows who or why he did it - they carry on their lives as best they can but as they repopulate - what will have changed - if anything populations may be more desperate and exploitaive. A few hundred years after his Sanp - the universe is in the same or worse condition. So pointless and zero result.

Ask those who survived the war if they considered society was devestated - they recovered because of stuff like the Marshall plan - who does this in a post snap world - he doesn't and he leaves nothing to rebuild a better world.

If he dictated to all what they could and could not do, he might achieve something. Or he could have changed their mental outlook with the snap. Or killed everyone "evil" - hard one to define.

His "big picture" is incredably limited and without imagination - he is a great tragic, mad character in the MCU films but his plan is also insane and pointless. He is a destroyer but not a builder.

Its not even if the universe seems over populated - I guess its a metephor for humans on earth - but there are more planets than humans in the Milky war alone....


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 14:01:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Blackie wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.


The opposite of zero result. He could have saved the universe for centuries. But I can agree about the percentage, he should have aimed to wiping 90% of the population, not just 50%. Still billions of lives in that 10%.

Why devastated societies? We had devastating world war wars and societies managed to re-born in a few years: Germany was in ashes in 1945, but one of the wealthier countries in the world 50 years later.

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.

It's the same concept that moves Mass Effect's villains, even if their harvest wasn't random.


On a galactic scale there is no shortage of resources, only sysyems to get the resources to the people who need them.

Thanos did nothing to solve that problem.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 14:05:49


Post by: Easy E


 Blackie wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.


The opposite of zero result. He could have saved the universe for centuries. But I can agree about the percentage, he should have aimed to wiping 90% of the population, not just 50%. Still billions of lives in that 10%.

Why devastated societies? We had devastating world war wars and societies managed to re-born in a few years: Germany was in ashes in 1945, but one of the wealthier countries in the world 50 years later.

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.

It's the same concept that moves Mass Effect's villains, even if their harvest wasn't random.


Welcome to the Illuminati.

There are people alive today who believe in population culling. That is part of what made Thanos' plan so terrifying.

Edit: I also found Endgame disappointing for a couple reasons. I never bothered to go back an re-watch it.

1. Dropping of Hulk story line from IW..... weak
2. Time travel to solve the issue.... weak
3. Too many character's needing their arcs resolved..... a tough lift for ANY movie

That said, I will take Endgame over The Last Jedi any day of the week. The director, Rian Johnson; of Last Jedi is a great director, see Brick and Knives Out. They are very talented. However, they were the absolute worst choice for a Star Wars movie. If you watch any of his other movies it is obvious. He could make an amazing Star Wars movie, just not the second movie of a trilogy.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 14:26:27


Post by: Vaktathi


 Blackie wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:


The "Mad" titan - no his whole theory was just stupid - I'll randomly kill half of all people cos in a couple of generations the population will be the same but I have just devestaed societies and killed countless people for zero result.


The opposite of zero result. He could have saved the universe for centuries. But I can agree about the percentage, he should have aimed to wiping 90% of the population, not just 50%. Still billions of lives in that 10%.

Why devastated societies? We had devastating world war wars and societies managed to re-born in a few years: Germany was in ashes in 1945, but one of the wealthier countries in the world 50 years later.

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.

It's the same concept that moves Mass Effect's villains, even if their harvest wasn't random.
On any any meaningful timescale to anything larger than an individual human lifespan, none of these actions would have accomplished any of Thanos' goals, even going for 90% Life can rebound insanely quickly and reoccupy niches and return to consuming existing resources if conditions are right insanely fast and nothing Thanos did addressed that at all. One will note that Germany didnt take 50 years to return to being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, they were back at that point after about a single generation. With intact industrialized societies and knowledge bases, much less stuff like fusion power and faster than light travel, returning to the status quo would likely take even less time even with greater destruction acros the galaxy/universe. Even if it had done what Thanos wanted for centuries, given the timescale of stuff he appears to be concerned about, centuries would be the blink of an eye. Life on earth has gone through multiple extinctions where only a small fraction of life has survived, and life on earth is more robust and diverse than at any other point in earth's history (or at least was until the current in-progress mass extinctions at our hands in the current era that is the Holocene).

The idea as expressed in Mass Effect was also among the dumbest, most hamfisted, poorly conceived and thought out, and most narrratively disconnected I've ever seen, so much so that it terminated all further interest in that franchise for me


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 14:59:18


Post by: creeping-deth87


It kind of astounds me how many people are still hung up on Thanos' plan not making sense. He's called the MAD Titan for a reason. Yes, his plan is incredibly stupid. So what? If you honestly believe an intelligent, rational being would never concoct such a scheme I would direct you to any number of our own real world examples in history. I apologize for Godwinning this thread but look no further than the damn Nazis. Nazism is a ridiculous, absolutely bone headed ideology and yet millions of people in a developed country bought into it wholeheartedly. Thanos is just another nut job.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 15:13:44


Post by: bbb


Every Pirates of the Caribbean after the first.

Every Matrix after the first.

Snowpiercer

Endgame was emotionally satisfying, but not intellectually satisfying.





Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 15:13:59


Post by: MarkNorfolk


I think people are hung up, not on the plot, but on Blackie, who is wholeheartedly pushing wholesale slaughter as an admirable, logical plan, and dismissing Tony Stark's idea that beings who can level city blocks ought have some kind of oversight.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 15:24:13


Post by: Mr Morden


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It kind of astounds me how many people are still hung up on Thanos' plan not making sense. He's called the MAD Titan for a reason. Yes, his plan is incredibly stupid. So what? If you honestly believe an intelligent, rational being would never concoct such a scheme I would direct you to any number of our own real world examples in history. I apologize for Godwinning this thread but look no further than the damn Nazis. Nazism is a ridiculous, absolutely bone headed ideology and yet millions of people in a developed country bought into it wholeheartedly. Thanos is just another nut job.


Which is exactly what I said.

What is scary is people still think it was a good idea

Thanos looked at the big picture: the lives he erased were irrelevant to the universe while slowing down the overexploitation of the resource was not. It sounds cynical but it's actually right.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 16:59:23


Post by: MDSW


I did not read the comics, but I find when you try to take a one-dimensional comic book villain's ideology into a fully fleshed out concept, it quickly falls apart.

Maybe it sounded good as a few quips in a comic series, but not in a multi-million dollar movie plot, but this may be taking the road way too high.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 17:08:57


Post by: Mr Morden


 MDSW wrote:
I did not read the comics, but I find when you try to take a one-dimensional comic book villain's ideology into a fully fleshed out concept, it quickly falls apart.

Maybe it sounded good as a few quips in a comic series, but not in a multi-million dollar movie plot, but this may be taking the road way too high.


I think it worked fine as long as you realised he was insane, with the first film being his own twisted "heroes" journey rather than that of the Superheros he fought.

I liken him to the agent in the Serenity film, he thought he was making a new world that had no place for people like him. It made his death at Thor;s hands at the start of the film more effective - and get the impression the older Thanos actually welcomed his death.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 18:25:15


Post by: Blackie


Thanos' plan maybe is stupid. His solution was maybe ineffective or imperfect. I'm not discussing that.

The reason why he did it was noble though.

I consider Iron Man much more of a villain instead: in Age of Ultron he basically wanted to control the entire world in the name of a global protection, under the threat of a super developed AI that knew everything about everyone and a massive amount of weapons, which sounds like a tyrant's plan. So much Orwell's 1984.

To quote Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

His space shield was much more of a wicked plan than Thanos' vision.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 18:36:04


Post by: Voss


 MDSW wrote:
I did not read the comics, but I find when you try to take a one-dimensional comic book villain's ideology into a fully fleshed out concept, it quickly falls apart.

Maybe it sounded good as a few quips in a comic series, but not in a multi-million dollar movie plot, but this may be taking the road way too high.


His motivation in the comics was actually more sane.
He was in love with Death (the entity, in the Marvel universe) and was giving her gifts. Its unquestionable evil, but at least had a chance of achieving his goal (though she didn't like him and didn't care about his idea of 'gifts')

His plan in the films was hateful and extremely stupid, as population growth is exponential. The 50% elimination is repopulated in about a century or so. On a universal scale, he killed uncountable billions for a brief delay of game to the 'resource shortfall' problem.
Had he simply done the opposite (made resources more available while campaigning for limits on population growth), it at least could have achieved something. With nigh infinite power, it would have been relatively simple and straightforward.
His solution to the 'give a man a fish/ teach a man to fish' problem was to kill half the fishermen and half the fish. Its really notable that the first sign the Avengers get that they've undone Thanos' wish is that the birds are back (and the tree isn't dead, iirc)


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 18:47:04


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Blackie wrote:

The reason why he did it was noble though.


Hard disagree. Thanos did it to prove that he was right and everyone else was wrong and unwilling to do what was necessary. It was entirely a selfish reason. Anything he says to the contrary is a thin veneer of lies over that truth.

If his intentions were noble and he was serious about saving the universe then his plan would have been the last resort after acquiring all of the stones rather than his first choice.

With the stones he could have set up a factory which produced resources and instantaneously delivered them to where they were needed, for example. The reality stone is capable of transforming energy into whatever the wielder wishes. He could literally take hydrogen gas and turn it into medicine, or food. He could then use the space stone to instantaneously send that medicine and food anywhere in the universe.

Thanos was a being of incredibly limited vision but boundless ego.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 18:51:10


Post by: Overread


See that makes more sense - sacrificing uncountable numbers of trillions upon trillions upon more trillions of life to DEATH in order to woe her to his arms.

Far more sane than such a vast death toll exacted to stave off resource shortfalls. Heck if you've got the power of creation just, I dunno, hobble the capacity for races to reproduce; advance them to an energy state of life; create more universe space and resources. I mean its supposed to show how he's insane, but it sort of comes off a bit odd when you consider how old, experienced and how wide travelled he is in the galaxy by the time he gets the powers he got.




That said my honest problem with the whole franchise is how it fragments into needing to watch so many other "adventure start" films to get to a point where you can watch the end films. Even then its still a mash-up.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 20:49:38


Post by: Mr Morden


 Blackie wrote:
Thanos' plan maybe is stupid. His solution was maybe ineffective or imperfect. I'm not discussing that.

The reason why he did it was noble though.

I consider Iron Man much more of a villain instead: in Age of Ultron he basically wanted to control the entire world in the name of a global protection, under the threat of a super developed AI that knew everything about everyone and a massive amount of weapons, which sounds like a tyrant's plan. So much Orwell's 1984.

To quote Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

His space shield was much more of a wicked plan than Thanos' vision.

That extrapolates to being anti- military in any form, any intelligene agency etc - its a balance - sometimes it tips one way or another - like The Acords - they make sense in a world like ours - how do you deal with people with superhuman powers -even martial artists are licensed. But they can then be abused like any power or law.

Tony was suffering from PTSd and having seen what could happen was desperate to find a way to defend the world, and those he loved.

Tony in the MCU is not a world leader - its not something he could manage (or even wanted to do) - esp not for any length of time early Tony is too busy having a good time, later he is love, then a family man. He never seems to be power hungry in the trad sense

No the Space Shield has issues but it does not kill untold numebrs of people.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 22:53:43


Post by: Casualty


The first Resident Evil. RE1 and 2 were so naturally cinematic they seemed ideal to jump off from into something legitimately scary and sombre. The movies are dumb fun I guess but every single second felt like a wasted opportunity.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/21 23:03:30


Post by: Backfire


Voss wrote:

His motivation in the comics was actually more sane.
He was in love with Death (the entity, in the Marvel universe) and was giving her gifts. Its unquestionable evil, but at least had a chance of achieving his goal (though she didn't like him and didn't care about his idea of 'gifts')


Actually it was Death who wanted to reduce population of Universe by half because due to exponential population growth, there were more people living in the universe than had ever died. So she resurrected Thanos and ordered him to kill half of the sentient beings everywhere "to restore balance". Thanos was just a lot more efficient than she had foreseen and got out of her control.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 01:03:40


Post by: ZergSmasher


I actually thought of another movie I was massively disappointed with. That being the recent remake of Ben-Hur. Some elements of it actually do follow the book a bit better, but overall to me they butchered it. Yes, the classic one with Charlton Heston is a tough act to follow, but they could have tried harder I think.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 01:20:24


Post by: Voss


Backfire wrote:
Voss wrote:

His motivation in the comics was actually more sane.
He was in love with Death (the entity, in the Marvel universe) and was giving her gifts. Its unquestionable evil, but at least had a chance of achieving his goal (though she didn't like him and didn't care about his idea of 'gifts')


Actually it was Death who wanted to reduce population of Universe by half because due to exponential population growth, there were more people living in the universe than had ever died. So she resurrected Thanos and ordered him to kill half of the sentient beings everywhere "to restore balance". Thanos was just a lot more efficient than she had foreseen and got out of her control.


Huh. Its been a great long while, but that seems later on. The original stories (in Captain Marvel and then Avengers) seemed pretty hinged on Thanos wooing Death, first with the help of the Cosmic Cube, and then later with the Infinity Gems. But this was in the mid 70s, not the early 90s Thanos Quest/Infinity Gauntlet stories.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 03:26:30


Post by: trexmeyer


 ZergSmasher wrote:
I actually thought of another movie I was massively disappointed with. That being the recent remake of Ben-Hur. Some elements of it actually do follow the book a bit better, but overall to me they butchered it. Yes, the classic one with Charlton Heston is a tough act to follow, but they could have tried harder I think.


I can't believe people actually watched that after how terrible the trailers appeared.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 03:44:42


Post by: LordofHats


 trexmeyer wrote:
 ZergSmasher wrote:
I actually thought of another movie I was massively disappointed with. That being the recent remake of Ben-Hur. Some elements of it actually do follow the book a bit better, but overall to me they butchered it. Yes, the classic one with Charlton Heston is a tough act to follow, but they could have tried harder I think.


I can't believe people actually watched that after how terrible the trailers appeared.


I watched it because I wanted to know exactly how terrible it was (pretty terrible)


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 04:10:15


Post by: Argive


Hmm hard to put them in any kind of order. Ive seen so many terrible and dissapointing movies Ive wiped most of them from memory.

1. Whatever the last terminator was.. Both me and my Mrs went to cinema as shes a big fan of the old terminator movies (we remebered watching them as kids and being effin terrified by the morthing liquid metal teminator just being invincible!!)

Then we saw the last one..
Spoiler:
where arnie is living as a builder


2. The second star wars movie int he new trilogy (the one with CGI kerry fisher surviving the void of space "coz jedi powers bruh"). The last was far worse but at least I went in expecting to be fed garbage..

3. Batman vs Superman - This... should have not been made ever.

4. The last 3 transformer films - Enjoyed the first two.

5. The latest Teenage mutant ninja turtle movies.. God... was that aweful..

6. Eragon... I really liked the books


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 05:51:00


Post by: Jadenim


Oh god, I forgot about that awful Eragon movie. Fortunately I never paid to go see it at the cinema (I was irritated that I missed it at the time), but when I got round to watching it at home I switched off halfway through in disgust!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 05:55:36


Post by: Necros


Battlefield Earth. Actually paid to see it in the theater. At least the popcorn was tasty...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 07:06:49


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Necros wrote:
Battlefield Earth. Actually paid to see it in the theater. At least the popcorn was tasty...


I'm curious as to how you expected a film adaptation of a nonsensical book written by the founder of scientology, produced by and starring die hard scientologist John Travolta, to be anything but awful?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 07:33:24


Post by: Matt Swain


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Necros wrote:
Battlefield Earth. Actually paid to see it in the theater. At least the popcorn was tasty...


I'm curious as to how you expected a film adaptation of a nonsensical book written by the founder of scientology, produced by and starring die hard scientologist John Travolta, to be anything but awful?


Maybe he was lucky enough not to have read the book. Unlike me. A relative, well meaning, bought it for me at a yard sale and I felt obligated to read it.

Oh..my....gork.

If you've never read this you can simply not believe what I could tell you about it. It's like 1930's comic book science plus action movie physics.

Just a few tidbits:

The psyclo aliens were tougher and stronger than humans because they has greater density. They had greater density because they were not made of cells but viruses, and viruses were much smaller than cells so they had a denser structure that humans.

In another part two aircraft are moving at supersonic speeds, and a human jumps from one to another.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 07:43:29


Post by: Pacific


It's actually not a bad book! Definitely a lot better than the film (which admittedly wouldn't be hard! Whoever thought a 12ft tall John Travolta was a good idea? )

I really liked the Mission Earth series as well, very entertaining tongue-in-cheek sci-fi about an 'Ambassador' of a galactic empire that comes to earth.

Think he was actually a good writer if you separate out all of the Scientology stuff that came along (which I find in itself a really fascinating insight into sociology and how religion/cult behaviour is created - although think that is probably a discussion for another thread!)


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 08:51:29


Post by: Backfire


Voss wrote:

Huh. Its been a great long while, but that seems later on. The original stories (in Captain Marvel and then Avengers) seemed pretty hinged on Thanos wooing Death, first with the help of the Cosmic Cube, and then later with the Infinity Gems. But this was in the mid 70s, not the early 90s Thanos Quest/Infinity Gauntlet stories.


Yes he was wooing Death, but the 'kill half the Universe' task which he did with Infinity Gauntlet was specificially given to him by Death.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 08:58:59


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Hollow Man.

For the most part, it’s pretty entertaining. But my recollection of it is he just goes completely off the deep end hatstand bonkers wibble with only the slightest provocation.

Then there’s the magically disappearing blood in the closing scenes of the movie. Smarty pants scientist does a genuine clever, flinging blood around, hoping to give him a good covering (arguably turning Bacon to Black Pudding). This works, and he can now be seen.

Yet......not long after, he’s managed to clean it off entirely, despite blood being quite tricky to wash off? Especially out of hair.

Though perhaps this me nitpicking at a movie, rather than finding the overall thing disappointing.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 09:29:38


Post by: MorglumNecksnapper


Recently: The Gentlemen.

After listening to Matthew McConaughey narrating the story for about 30 minutes I stopped watching. Can't remember another movie I actually turned off.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 09:59:18


Post by: Backfire


Perhaps most disappointed I have ever been in a movie was Congo. I loved the book, it is one of the best Crichton novels, and some of the previous filmatizations of his work had been good (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain). So I was highly excited. And it was just AWFUL. Truly, incredibly bad with no redeeming features anywhere. It had none of the tension and mystery of the book, it was just straight-up monster story and very badly made one.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 10:16:53


Post by: Overread


Lets be honest Marvel/DC reboots/restarts/reimagines their heroes quite regularly (heck spider man has 4 different film timelines now at least? - Hulk got two almost back to back and is on a 3rd?). So the stories shift and change and yet remain the same all the time.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 11:16:34


Post by: balmong7


kind of cliche but batman v superman: dawn of justice was genuinely the first time I looked around in a movie theatre and said "I'm not having fun here today. this is bad" normally even bad movies I enjoy during the film and then dissect and form an opinion on later.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 11:34:18


Post by: insaniak


 Overread wrote:
Hulk got two almost back to back and is on a 3rd?). .

The first Hulk movie (with Eric Bana) pre-dates the MCU. The reboot 5 years later with Edward Norton was to pull out into the MCU. There's no third... Ruffalo is supposed to be the same Hulk, he just took over for Norton.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 12:29:22


Post by: Pacific


Backfire wrote:Perhaps most disappointed I have ever been in a movie was Congo. I loved the book, it is one of the best Crichton novels, and some of the previous filmatizations of his work had been good (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain). So I was highly excited. And it was just AWFUL. Truly, incredibly bad with no redeeming features anywhere. It had none of the tension and mystery of the book, it was just straight-up monster story and very badly made one.


Yep - suicide apes jumping into lava and laser beams, pretty awful. I agree I enjoyed the book too, and Congo fails especially if you consider the films that have come out of Crichton's other work (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain etc.)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hollow Man.

For the most part, it’s pretty entertaining. But my recollection of it is he just goes completely off the deep end hatstand bonkers wibble with only the slightest provocation.

Then there’s the magically disappearing blood in the closing scenes of the movie. Smarty pants scientist does a genuine clever, flinging blood around, hoping to give him a good covering (arguably turning Bacon to Black Pudding). This works, and he can now be seen.

Yet......not long after, he’s managed to clean it off entirely, despite blood being quite tricky to wash off? Especially out of hair.

Though perhaps this me nitpicking at a movie, rather than finding the overall thing disappointing.


I thought it was disappointing too. I remember there was an awful amount of hype about it before it was released, and then it just failed to fit together very well.

Should have used Kevin Bacon better (who I think could have pulled off the creepy role well, back before he was advertising phone networks) - can't really remember particulars about it, other than I remember coming away from it feeling particularly non-plussed.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 12:45:44


Post by: Super Ready


 Pacific wrote:
Should have used Kevin Bacon better (who I think could have pulled off the creepy role well, back before he was advertising phone networks)

Oh, he can absolutely do creepy. Go watch Stir of Echoes, you won't regret it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 16:57:54


Post by: Snake Tortoise


The Last Jedi. I actually really liked the prequels and was determined to be open minded about the sequels. I liked TFA, but on the assumption we'd see a lot more of Leia and Luke in episodes 8 and 9. Well, it all went wrong in The Last Jedi (for me)


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 18:05:52


Post by: Vulcan


 Overread wrote:
See that makes more sense - sacrificing uncountable numbers of trillions upon trillions upon more trillions of life to DEATH in order to woe her to his arms.

Far more sane than such a vast death toll exacted to stave off resource shortfalls. Heck if you've got the power of creation just, I dunno, hobble the capacity for races to reproduce; advance them to an energy state of life; create more universe space and resources. I mean its supposed to show how he's insane, but it sort of comes off a bit odd when you consider how old, experienced and how wide travelled he is in the galaxy by the time he gets the powers he got.

That said my honest problem with the whole franchise is how it fragments into needing to watch so many other "adventure start" films to get to a point where you can watch the end films. Even then its still a mash-up.


It sounds to me like he became obsessed with his solution when was young, and in his obsession he never reconsidered it as he gained experience. Thus, his insanity. Insanity is not rational. You can offer all the evidence in the universe that he's wrong, and his obsession and insanity will not - cannot admit it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 18:07:40


Post by: Stevefamine


Newest Star Wars that came out. Destroyed the entire series for me and I probably won't watch anything outside of 1-6 and Rogue One for years to come

That was the last bad movie I saw


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 19:51:27


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Currently watching The Equalizer 2. And it’s kinda disappointing.

See, I love the TV Show, despite almost certainly being too young to see it when I was a nipper.

McCall is a vigilante, and the TV shows played out like a darker A-Team, where he hired out his skills to the underdog.

The first movie seemed to be teasing him coming out of retirement, like a sort of prequel to the events of the series (albeit in a different continuity).

The sequel? Nah. It’s just another fairly, if not slightly above average Revenge Thriller.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve seen far, far worse offerings. And this is nothing else if not visceral.

But I wanted to see McCall doing his thing of helping people. Hence my disappointment.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 22:00:36


Post by: Backfire


I was only mildly disappointed at Rise of Skywalker. I didn't have high expectations as I had totally lost faith in JJA.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/22 23:40:23


Post by: Gitzbitah


I had also forgotten about Eragon. That movie was so bad. Like direct to VHS DnD movie bad. Like Any of the straight to video Disney sequel bads.

Another awful thing was that Arrested Development series that went straight to Netflix- and could only film with one or two of the cast at a time. I was so excited for the series to be continued.... and it was awful.I'm pretty sure there's been another one put out, but I couldn't bring myself to watch it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 00:59:39


Post by: ZergSmasher


Backfire wrote:
I was only mildly disappointed at Rise of Skywalker. I didn't have high expectations as I had totally lost faith in JJA.

That's how I felt about it. I still think TLJ was worse than TROS, although both were pretty bad.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 01:22:46


Post by: Vulcan


After TLJ I haven't bothered with anything else DisneyWars. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I have no intention of being shamed by DisneyWars. I learned my lesson the first time.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 06:23:33


Post by: trexmeyer


 Vulcan wrote:
After TLJ I haven't bothered with anything else DisneyWars. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

I have no intention of being shamed by DisneyWars. I learned my lesson the first time.


S1 of The Mandalorian was good. I don't know how it will tie into the Disneyverse at this point, but I think it will continue to work at least as a Samurai/Western homage.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 08:03:44


Post by: Snake Tortoise


Backfire wrote:
I was only mildly disappointed at Rise of Skywalker. I didn't have high expectations as I had totally lost faith in JJA.


Same. Bringing the emperor back was utterly bizarre and didn't work at all, but I went into the cinema knowing that was what was happening. Given TLJ and Palps returning with no explanation, the film was okay. Just okay. The damage had already been done

I still think they could have made a good, even great, trilogy after TFA. The Last Jedi buried that possibility.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 08:39:23


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I still don’t know how anyone could watch the assembly of studio notes and kewl scenes that is TFA and come away anything but disappointed.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 09:09:43


Post by: Backfire


I was about as disappointed at TFA as I was to TRoS. This is not to say they are equally good movies, but I had higher expectations going into TFA. "A Star Wars directed by competent people! This is it finally!" And while the movie wasn't bad, I walked out quite shocked just at how much it was a remake of New Hope. Couldn't they come up with anything new? And what's with the bad guy, he seems so generic and boring. What is their master plan to this?

And of course, it turned out, they didn't have one.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 11:34:55


Post by: Super Ready


Backfire wrote:
I was about as disappointed at TFA as I was to TRoS. This is not to say they are equally good movies, but I had higher expectations going into TFA. "A Star Wars directed by competent people! This is it finally!" And while the movie wasn't bad, I walked out quite shocked just at how much it was a remake of New Hope. Couldn't they come up with anything new? And what's with the bad guy, he seems so generic and boring. What is their master plan to this?
And of course, it turned out, they didn't have one.

So much this. I enjoyed TFA, but did think to myself they played it a little safe. So I was genuinely really pleased with TLJ when they actually introduced new force powers, gave us an unexpected villain kill and replacement, and made Luke believably jaded from age and experience, and not just "cookie cutter good guy who hasn't changed at all in 40 years". Honestly, I really don't understand the TLJ hate - it was perfectly in the spirit of the original trilogy, which you'll notice introduced new ideas about the Force with every film.

But noooo, of course Disney had to backtrack because of the ravening hordes, and wound up allowing the continuation of what looks like a gak-flinging match between Rian and JJ, culminating in TRoS being an absolute pile that a 6 year old could have written.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 14:21:52


Post by: Backfire


Well personally I liked TLJ most of the Disney Trilogy, because it didn't play safe and took risks. Of course many of the risks were realized and the movie truly has some very bad stuff. It was the first Star Wars movie since RotJ which didn't disappoint me as I went in without any expectations. Any way, not wanna turn in to TLJ sucks/rocks debate part 599435. What everyone surely agrees is that "Tag! You're it!" -method is a terrible way to make a trilogy. As much as I think JJ Abrams is complete hack as a writer, Disney trilogy would have been better if it had been written entirely by him. Or alternatively they had told Rian Johnson that he has to write the part 3 too. Anything but "write whatever crazy gak you want, somebody else will take over."


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 16:23:44


Post by: Kayback


 Super Ready wrote:
So I was genuinely really pleased with TLJ when they actually introduced new force powers, gave us an unexpected villain kill and replacement, and made Luke believably jaded from age and experience, and not just "cookie cutter good guy who hasn't changed at all in 40 years". Honestly, I really don't understand the TLJ hate - it was perfectly in the spirit of the original trilogy, which you'll notice introduced new ideas about the Force with every film.



I didn't mind new force powers. It's to be expected.

I *DESPISED* what they did to Luke's character. He was the only one who didn't stay the same over those 40 years. Leia stayed the leader of the Rebel Alliance, sorry Resistance, but now with Force Powers, Han stayed the same as the rougish rogue who vagabonded around space with Chewie. Chewie was Chewie. Even Palpatine was evil dictator behind the sceenes. The Resistance was just a reskinned Rebel Alliance, the First Order was the Empire. The Death Star was the Planet Killer Starbase thingy. R2-D2 and C3P0 were the same. Yoda was the same cryptic little frog.

So why did Luke have to change? Seriously, why? No one else did.

Anakin literally killed a room full of children Sandy Hook style, but he got a redemption arc. Luke thought about preventing a bigger tragedy, only *thought* about it and he gets what? A character shift and shunted off to nowhere? Nope nopeity nope nope. I lost interest in Star Wars then. I watched TFA and enjoyed meh. I watched TLJ and was yeah, no. I didn't watch TROS until I could pirate it. I'd been front and center first showing of Ep 1,2&3. I watched Rogue One in 3D IMAX opening day. I watched TFA opening day. TLJ after 3 weeks. TROS was months later.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 16:33:37


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 16:37:37


Post by: Kayback


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.


No true. But that's part of the tragedy. Disney should not have handed a blank cheque to someone who said, "new trilogy, trust me bro" and didn't have an epic roadmap.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 18:07:37


Post by: Voss


Kayback wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.


No true. But that's part of the tragedy. Disney should not have handed a blank cheque to someone who said, "new trilogy, trust me bro" and didn't have an epic roadmap.



That would be Disney themselves. As crappy as both directors are, that isn't their job- they're present to direct the films they're hired for (nor, afaik, did either pitch the trilogy, Disney approached them with the idea). A coherent plot for the whole trilogy was Disney's responsibility to bear, and should have involved a writing team for the whole arc. Not just letting Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum make it up for each installment.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 18:22:47


Post by: Lance845


KK tried to do what Kevin Feige and Marvel have done without any understanding of what it is KF and Marvel actually do.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 18:23:17


Post by: Mr Morden


 Super Ready wrote:
Backfire wrote:
I was about as disappointed at TFA as I was to TRoS. This is not to say they are equally good movies, but I had higher expectations going into TFA. "A Star Wars directed by competent people! This is it finally!" And while the movie wasn't bad, I walked out quite shocked just at how much it was a remake of New Hope. Couldn't they come up with anything new? And what's with the bad guy, he seems so generic and boring. What is their master plan to this?
And of course, it turned out, they didn't have one.

So much this. I enjoyed TFA, but did think to myself they played it a little safe. So I was genuinely really pleased with TLJ when they actually introduced new force powers, gave us an unexpected villain kill and replacement, and made Luke believably jaded from age and experience, and not just "cookie cutter good guy who hasn't changed at all in 40 years". Honestly, I really don't understand the TLJ hate - it was perfectly in the spirit of the original trilogy, which you'll notice introduced new ideas about the Force with every film.

But noooo, of course Disney had to backtrack because of the ravening hordes, and wound up allowing the continuation of what looks like a gak-flinging match between Rian and JJ, culminating in TRoS being an absolute pile that a 6 year old could have written.


I hated that film and the time and money I wasted seeing it.
Almost every scene was pure and boring nonsense with some of the worst characters I have ever seen in a film doing incredably stupid things again and again.
Lowlights:

A dumb roadtrip to equally silly Casino world - apparently if you need to go and ride some space horses you can escape but not if you are in the Ship of Fools.
The Ship of Fools in the most boring chase sequence in the history of sci-fi - the sheer mind numbing tedium of this sequance is astounding watching as you watch nothing happening for a bout an hour - so the above trip to casino world can be made.
The sheer lazyiness of the writers in every scene - nothing makes sense, motivations are lacking for everyone.
Lack of urgency or the slightest element of tension.
Little things like three TIE fighter nearly destroy the Ship of Fools on their own, wipe out their fighters (so nothing excting like a dog fight can happen to break up the tedium), but the entire rest of the big First Order Fleet never launches a single one subsequent to this.

Its a stupid, tedious, badly written, awfully directed POS film on my opinon of course -

The only inovation this Johnson bloke managed was to drain the series of any excitiment, heart, soul, tension, characterisation and interest.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 18:35:31


Post by: LordofHats


 Lance845 wrote:
KK tried to do what Kevin Feige and Marvel have done without any understanding of what it is KF and Marvel actually do.


This is the real problem.

I disagree with most JJ hate, but JJ has never seemed to be able to recognize gak writing when he sees it. Otherwise he wouldn't drag the same three gakky writers into pretty much every big project he makes and succeed in spite of them when he succeeds. I also don't think TFA forced TLJ to be such a gakky movie. TLJ had a number of good ideas but no real thought put into how they should play out or connect so it ended up being a mess. Then ROS came out and it was impossible to take it seriously, and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.

I think that more than anyone Disney deserves the blame for the new trilogy's failure to inspire. Disney could have fixed all the big problems by exercising a degree of control over a multiple entry project (the one time we actually want executives to meddle a little bit) and Disney didn't seem to see any inherent problem in hiring different directors for one project and telling them to just do whatever.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 18:50:58


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 LordofHats wrote:
...and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.


I disagree with this. For its faults, The Last Jedi did a great job setting up Rey and Kylo for the final film. It also laid some solid groundwork for a potential schism within the First Order with the differences between Kylo and Hux. It got rid of the dramatic dead end that was Snoke and did so in a way which demonstrated some real cunning on Kylo's part. It removed the need for Rey to be from some great family, instead she could just be Rey.

Abrams decided to throw all those hooks away in favour of a completely unforeshadowed (unless you play Fortnite, that is) return of Palpatine to ham it up and once again get toasted by his own lightning. Rey had to be connected to some powerful force family because feth normal people having great gifts, everyone has to be connected to some force bloodline bs like its a eugenics program. He was handed an interesting, complicated villain/antihero on a platter and decided to not use that as the focal villain of the story.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 19:17:21


Post by: Mr Morden


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
...and wasn't even ROS fault the first 2 movies were to epileptic to produce a coherent finale.


I disagree with this. For its faults, The Last Jedi did a great job setting up Rey and Kylo for the final film. It also laid some solid groundwork for a potential schism within the First Order with the differences between Kylo and Hux. It got rid of the dramatic dead end that was Snoke and did so in a way which demonstrated some real cunning on Kylo's part. It removed the need for Rey to be from some great family, instead she could just be Rey.

Abrams decided to throw all those hooks away in favour of a completely unforeshadowed (unless you play Fortnite, that is) return of Palpatine to ham it up and once again get toasted by his own lightning. Rey had to be connected to some powerful force family because feth normal people having great gifts, everyone has to be connected to some force bloodline bs like its a eugenics program. He was handed an interesting, complicated villain/antihero on a platter and decided to not use that as the focal villain of the story.


The first two films were shameless in their use of plots from the original series - Immensely overpaid Directors and writters copying (but badly) previous films - easy pay check guys.

AFA was a very average remake of Star Wars.
TLJ shat out a dismal and boring film - subverting any expectation of excitiment except a tepid lazy version of several key scenes for ESB.
I have no interest in seeing the third film so can't comment on it.

I quite liked Rey but did not care if she was a Skywalker or not - still don't


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 19:19:25


Post by: insaniak


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order.

...which, amusingly enough, was exactly what Lucas had planned to do with Luke as well, apparently.

My only real complaint about the sequel trilogy is that there wasn't more of Grumpy Old Man Luke. He was awesome.



Wandering vaguely back to the topic for a moment, I finally got around to watching X-Men: Dark Phoenix last night and was not as disappointed as I expected to be, from the reviews I had read of it. It wasn't actually bad... it just wasn't particularly good. They stripped all the fun of the previous movies out of it, leaving a fairly dark and depressing, but also rather dull and predictable story. It was better than X3, and stuck much closer to the source material this time around, but I'm still left wondering why someone thought it was worth the effort of doing the Phoenix story again rather than plundering another of the many, many, many movie-worthy X-men storylines.

Easily my least favourite of the 'Young Crew' movies, not one I would be hurrying back to re-watch (unless someone puts out an edit that just compiles all of the Nightcrawler bits) and particularly disappointing for being the movie that the current X-men continuity goes out on.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/24 19:41:19


Post by: Mr Morden


 insaniak wrote:


Wandering vaguely back to the topic for a moment, I finally got around to watching X-Men: Dark Phoenix last night and was not as disappointed as I expected to be, from the reviews I had read of it. It wasn't actually bad... it just wasn't particularly good. They stripped all the fun of the previous movies out of it, leaving a fairly dark and depressing, but also rather dull and predictable story. It was better than X3, and stuck much closer to the source material this time around, but I'm still left wondering why someone thought it was worth the effort of doing the Phoenix story again rather than plundering another of the many, many, many movie-worthy X-men storylines.

Easily my least favourite of the 'Young Crew' movies, not one I would be hurrying back to re-watch (unless someone puts out an edit that just compiles all of the Nightcrawler bits) and particularly disappointing for being the movie that the current X-men continuity goes out on.



Yeah thats my view of it - it was just underwhelming but not truly bad - I have not seen New Mutants yet which I think is vaguely in the same univrse as the others but not sure. The super powered folk in Dark Pheonix also seemed to be underpowered compared to Apoclaypse.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 01:14:21


Post by: Vulcan


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I still don’t know how anyone could watch the assembly of studio notes and kewl scenes that is TFA and come away anything but disappointed.


I was mildly disappointed there too, but let's face it, much like the release of Episode 1, NOTHING was going to live up to anyone's expectations... so when I was mildly disappointed I wasn't all that surprised.

EDIT: Yeah, best not to rehash the 'why I think TLJ sucks' yet again. Moving on...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 01:50:50


Post by: Super Ready


 Vulcan wrote:
So... the man who never gave up on seeing the good in his mass-murdering, child-killing father being ready to kill his nephew because of what he MIGHT do in the future didn't bother you?

No, not at all. Don't forget that Luke is in his, what, 20's when the original trilogy happens? And by TLJ, he's much much older. People change. I'm in my 30s now and I know my outlook on life and many things has changed a great deal even in 10 years. Current me might not even recognise the opinions I'll eventually have when I reach that age.
It also tracks with how (with some exceptions, of course) most people are much more idealistic in their youth.
(Also, not that I'm sure it makes a difference, I'm not sure anyone ever explained to Luke about the child-murdering thing - that'd be an oddly specific thing to mention.)

So the hyperspace ram, which invalidates not just the defeat of both Death Stars AND Starkiller Base, but also invalidates the existence of those superweapons as well, didn't bother you?

On reflection, it did seem a little wild - but in the moment, it made for very cool cinema. It didn't suspend my disbelief or anything, until much later.
The technique not being used all the time can also happily be explained by:
a) spaceships being large, expensive things that the Rebels can't exactly afford to just purposely wreck every battle they're in,
b) would be of little use in any battle where you're facing multiple ships,
c) takes a great deal of sacrifice that you can't just expect someone to do without some deep, deep moral concerns.
d) the genuine possibility that maybe nobody ever considered trying it before?

So Rey pulling more and greater force powers out of her backside with no training whatsoever in direct defiance of eveything we've been shown about the force in all previous movies didn't bother you?

This did bother me a little, but it's something that appears in all 3 movies. You can't really level that accusation at TLJ alone.


...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 02:22:19


Post by: Vulcan


 Super Ready wrote:
 Vulcan wrote:
So... the man who never gave up on seeing the good in his mass-murdering, child-killing father being ready to kill his nephew because of what he MIGHT do in the future didn't bother you?

No, not at all. Don't forget that Luke is in his, what, 20's when the original trilogy happens? And by TLJ, he's much much older. People change. I'm in my 30s now and I know my outlook on life and many things has changed a great deal even in 10 years. Current me might not even recognise the opinions I'll eventually have when I reach that age.
It also tracks with how (with some exceptions, of course) most people are much more idealistic in their youth.
(Also, not that I'm sure it makes a difference, I'm not sure anyone ever explained to Luke about the child-murdering thing - that'd be an oddly specific thing to mention.)

So the hyperspace ram, which invalidates not just the defeat of both Death Stars AND Starkiller Base, but also invalidates the existence of those superweapons as well, didn't bother you?

On reflection, it did seem a little wild - but in the moment, it made for very cool cinema. It didn't suspend my disbelief or anything, until much later.
The technique not being used all the time can also happily be explained by:
a) spaceships being large, expensive things that the Rebels can't exactly afford to just purposely wreck every battle they're in,
b) would be of little use in any battle where you're facing multiple ships,
c) takes a great deal of sacrifice that you can't just expect someone to do without some deep, deep moral concerns.
d) the genuine possibility that maybe nobody ever considered trying it before?

So Rey pulling more and greater force powers out of her backside with no training whatsoever in direct defiance of eveything we've been shown about the force in all previous movies didn't bother you?

This did bother me a little, but it's something that appears in all 3 movies. You can't really level that accusation at TLJ alone.


...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.


If we're going to go down the rabbit hole...

1) I can see Luke going that way.... it was just handled very poorly. Perhaps if Yoda had said something along the lines of "Warned you, we did. Spending too much time looking toward the future, your weakness always was," referring back to Yoda's objection to taking on Luke for training in the first place, it could have worked.

2) Admiral Evening Gown could have done it with a simple ram in realspace, possibly with engines set to overload and detonate on impact.

You forget, hyperspace travel has been in use continuosly for thousands of years. THOUSANDS. By untold trillions (if not more) intelligent beings. You're telling me that not one, at no point, in any of the wars in the past, wasn't desperate enough to try it before Holdo did? I'll grant you innovation in the Star Wars universe is extremely slow and innovators extremely valuable (look at the lengths the Empire went to keep Erso Jynn working for them), but... really? No one?

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

I could also mention terrible, truly awful tactics used on both sides, the irrelevant side-trip to Monte Carlo planet, the waste of potential in Captain Phasma, the truly AWFUL fight choreography, and that there's actually a good story hiding in there if you address the problems, but that's moving the goalposts.

4) The problem is, it's a moderate-okay sci-fi flick if taken in isolation. But as a Star Wars movie, with all that implies, it was terrible. If you're going to make a movie in a franchise of movies, you have to operate within the rules set by those previous movies. If you can't do that, then just make a stand-alone movie.

EDIT: If you're really interested in continuing this, PM me. Let's not derail this thread any further than we already have.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 02:24:10


Post by: jdouglas



Sinbad and the War of the Furies.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 02:59:11


Post by: insaniak


 Vulcan wrote:
Perhaps if Yoda had said something along the lines of "Warned you, we did. Spending too much time looking toward the future, your weakness always was," referring back to Yoda's objection to taking on Luke for training in the first place, it could have worked.

He did. They have a whole big conversation about it while the tree is burning.


2) Admiral Evening Gown could have done it with a simple ram in realspace, possibly with engines set to overload and detonate on impact.

They would have blown her ship apart the moment she came in range.


3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.


4) The problem is, it's a moderate-okay sci-fi flick if taken in isolation. But as a Star Wars movie, with all that implies, it was terrible. If you're going to make a movie in a franchise of movies, you have to operate within the rules set by those previous movies. If you can't do that, then just make a stand-alone movie.

Except that none of the previous Star Wars movies have ever done that. Remember when lightsabers were blue for the good guys, or red for the bad guys, until Lucas decided that green looked better than blue when they wanted to film a battle outside?

Star Wars isn't sci fi. It's fantasy in space, and it's always been made up on the fly to suit the whims of the director.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 03:00:20


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Sinbad the sailor or Sinbad the comedian who may or may not have played a genie?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 05:10:09


Post by: jdouglas


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Sinbad the sailor or Sinbad the comedian who may or may not have played a genie?


Yes the sailor, Not the comedian. This was a god-awful 2016 release, that probably went straight to video. Staring the WWE star, John (Morrison) Hennigan. Highly not-recommended (unless you enjoy laughter at incredulity). If you are looking for Dynamation you are barking up the wrong tree. The bad part is that I spent three dollars for a used DVD copy in a thrift shop.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 11:11:02


Post by: Mr Morden


...when it comes down to it - whenever I see criticism of TLJ, with the exception of Luke's treatment, I see criticisms that can very easily be levelled at the original trilogy too. (The hyperspace ram's equivalent being just about every physics issue with the battles in space.) You're either willing to write things off under the rule of cool, or you're not - but if you're not satisfied with TLJ while enjoying the original trilogy? Just admit already that the real issue is that it isn't the Star Wars you wanted.


No cos you wrong in somehow knowing what i want, its about as accurate as me saying you only like TLJ cos you like Rian Johnson....

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Star Wars films are light entertainment - always have been.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 11:36:52


Post by: Backfire


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Ryan Johnson, he had to come up with some explanation for JJ’s choice in TFA to portray Luke as someone so desperate to leave life in the galaxy that he disappeared without leaving any contact information other than some stupid scavenger hunt-map. TFA gave us hermit Luke who gave up on teaching Jedi. TFA gave us sad sack Luke who abandoned his friends and his galaxy despite the rise of a new dark order. Perhaps RJ could have found a way to spin that gak into gold, but he was barely a better choice than JJ when it comes to directing Star Wars movies.


Exactly - if people don't like Depressed Old Man Luke, that's fair (although personally I do) but I don't understand why they blame Rian Johnson from it, when the character was laid out as he was already in TFA?? Seriously, look at that ending of TFA where Rey offers the lightsaber to very reluctant looking Luke - does the guy looks like he is going to pick it up, jump into his X-Wing and go fly to kick Snoke's hologram arse?
No he does not.

I totally and completely expected after TFA that Luke is going to be reluctant coming out of his hermitage, then the trailers showed Luke reluctant coming out of his hermitage, then in the movie, Luke was reluctant to come out of his hermitage and NOW people were up in the arms "This is an outrage! Johnson does this only to subvert expectations!!" Really? You guys didn't see THIS coming?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 11:47:14


Post by: Overread


Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.



The problem for many was the last time we saw Luke he was a hero of 3 films. Who had won against the Emperor himself. We saw a hero so seeing him broken and damaged is a hard sell for many because they don't connect the dots mentally that a hero can fail and fall and perhaps end up someone they don't like as much as they used too.



Again if we'd seen the fall it would have worked; I put it down to the systematic general lack of an overall plot line to link the three films together form the outset. The writing team lacked a coherent vision for the series so we got two films that basically tried to not make and tell a story, but instead make and sell a formula.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 12:19:40


Post by: Backfire


 Overread wrote:
Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.


I agree with this in principle (we never got to see just what exactly Snoke did to corrupt Ben) however the film-makers clearly wanted to promote new cast and make the movie about them. Putting Luke into central role right from the start would have been counterproductive to that. It's hard to fault that decision because lets face it, the old cast is, well, old. Also it mirrors the New Hope where Obi-Wan, protagonist of the prequels, is reduced into mentor and father figure - and killed off in very first movie. I guess if the prequels had been made first, Obi-Wan fans would have whined how his character was ruined in Episode IV...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 12:36:23


Post by: Super Ready


 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.
I feel a bit bad about contributing to the derail here, so I will indeed leave the Star Wars talk there.

...so, getting back to other disappointing movies. What do we think of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films? I did enjoy them - but they weren't as eye-opening as the first (perhaps that's an impossible ask) and I was deeply disappointed in the direction the 3rd took in particular.
Spoiler:
In particular - I really wanted Neo's Sentinel takedown at the end of Reloaded to be a hint that the "real world" was in fact, just another layer of Matrix, and he'd fulfil the prophecy of the One for good this time, by breaking out of that too.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 12:43:24


Post by: Mr Morden


Backfire wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Honestly my problem with the whole Luke as a hermit is that it relies upon content that we never really see in the films. We get snippets that something went really wrong, but we don't actually see it.

Film 1 of the new trilogy should have opened with the optimistic Luke starting to train the new padawans, his sister and Han's son. It should have show us his struggles to rebuild the Jedi on his own against a Galaxy that basically forgot about them and is going through huge turmoil as they attempt to rebuild a republic whilst still fighting off remaining Imperial forces; independent systems etc...

If we'd seen Luke try, struggle and fail we'd have been more open to then seeing him as a hermit; broken, shattered and perhaps with some sinister start of the Sith already working to break Luke in the background.


I agree with this in principle (we never got to see just what exactly Snoke did to corrupt Ben) however the film-makers clearly wanted to promote new cast and make the movie about them. Putting Luke into central role right from the start would have been counterproductive to that. It's hard to fault that decision because lets face it, the old cast is, well, old. Also it mirrors the New Hope where Obi-Wan, protagonist of the prequels, is reduced into mentor and father figure - and killed off in very first movie. I guess if the prequels had been made first, Obi-Wan fans would have whined how his character was ruined in Episode IV...


Having a whole new generation was cool - I liked Rey and Ben could have been interesting - having them actually unite would also have been interesting. Having the rebellion /resistance be wiped out quickly rather than take tedious hours of the worst chase scene in film history again sets more up. Have survivors flee, you can have the crappy Casino world if you like but have it with people not caring that the FO is in control - life goes on for the rich. Have a desperate evac of the rebel ships as they are cut to pieces, the fighters unable to hold off the FO squadrons and then have the Hypserpace ram in the middle of the battle so in the cnfusion the shuttles limp to not Hoth.

But all these or other possibilites were lost due to the awful director and writers of TLJ - what a wast of money, time and acting talent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Super Ready wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.
I feel a bit bad about contributing to the derail here, so I will indeed leave the Star Wars talk there.

...so, getting back to other disappointing movies. What do we think of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films? I did enjoy them - but they weren't as eye-opening as the first (perhaps that's an impossible ask) and I was deeply disappointed in the direction the 3rd took in particular.
Spoiler:
In particular - I really wanted Neo's Sentinel takedown at the end of Reloaded to be a hint that the "real world" was in fact, just another layer of Matrix, and he'd fulfil the prophecy of the One for good this time, by breaking out of that too.


I did not enjoy them - and there was that cringe worthy sex scene - Ughh. Oh look Neo is superman - but...meh.

They just seemed tired and uninteresting - lots of disperate plot elements that never seemed to matter (hey look vamps and werewolves) - Monica Bulici wasted in a film yet again.

They spent alot of time on a chase scene whereas the one in T3 ( a better film) had a better one at the same time


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 12:55:35


Post by: Backfire


Matrix Reloaded was somewhat mediocre compared to the first Matrix, and Revolutions was downright bad and most things in the movie made no sense. I mean it was like Attack of the Clones of the Matrix series. I was quite disappointed at both of them to be sure.

Another significant disappointment for me was Bram Stoker's Dracula by Coppola. I LOVE the original book but it hasn't really seen any proper film adaptation. So I was super excited for this because it was supposed to be accurate depiction of the original story and it was made by Coppola for pete's sake! Can't go wrong there right?

Well the movie starts and we see Dracula who is this weird cartoonish wizard instead of East European gentleman. The movie had distinct B-movie feel because Coppola shot it entirely in studio using only traditional film-making tricks and effects. It is very theatrical and seems more like a stage play than a movie. Finally, they tried to add a genuine love story between Dracula and Mina, thus making Dracula supposedly a sympathetic character and it was just very awkward. Casting was bad all around, less said about Keanu in this role, the better.

I would not call it a complete disaster of a movie, but it's a 2.5 star movie tops. Of course some 'usual suspects' heaped praise on it because it was Coppola, it has to be good, right? Posterity however has not listed this amongst his masterpieces and for a good reason.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 13:09:28


Post by: Lance845


 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.


Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember when The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 13:18:18


Post by: Mr Morden


 Lance845 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.


Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember then The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?


Thats fair - there seems to be plenty of low level or untrained force users about - I guess under the Jedi they were either trained or worked for themselves. Under the Empire pretty sure they were hunted down. There should be some about - we have the failed Jedi priest guy in Rogue One as well.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 15:06:06


Post by: Voss


 Super Ready wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:

I was not satisifed with the film due to its poor storytelling, dismal characters, awful pacing, lack of tension or excitement, derative copying of previous films wihlst sucking any potential enjoyment out of it. TLJ failed in every single element of a film that matters.

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.


Then you weren't really looking at actual criticism of the film. Terrible storytelling and pacing in particular were very common problem points, even here in the endless SW movie threads. I know I ranted about them enough.

I'm honestly curious what 'new' things it tried though. The derivative elements are easy to see- salt planet is basically a retread of the Hoth battle, the opening is a (very bad) retread of the Hoth escape (the only 'new' bit is that they failed in a laughable fashion), other than that its a series of random chases and gaffs leading to temporary capture and escape, then the survivors group up and wander off. That's definitely not new for star wars- there's at least two chase/capture/escape sequences per prequel.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 16:18:58


Post by: Gitzbitah


Was Luke really that inconsistent? One of the things I enjoyed about it the most was that it was consistent with Luke. He's always been a man of indecision, and poorly thought out plans.
This is the same guy who wanted off Tatooine at any price, then balked at the idea of going to Alderaan to save a princess.
The same one who decided to take on a whole space station in order to save a princess, with no real plan.
The dude who abandoned the rebellion in order to train, then abandoned his training for what was obviously a trap during Empire Strikes Back.
Then blew the cover of the forest moon of Endor sabotage mission in a poorly thought out attempt to save Vader, then walked into the Imperial Base.
His heart's in the right place, always, but Luke is really, really inconsistent. It's no surprise that he gives up on training and trainees with alarming regularity, and lives with the Porgs.

The only really well thought out plan he was a part of was the Jabba's palace caper- and since Lando was involved, I imagine it was his plan or Leia's. Those two had subterfuge and execution of intricate schemes.

I just really enjoyed TLJ Luke. He was as awful a master as he was a Jedi, which I thought was hilarious. Now if you want to put criticism on it, point to Holdo's operational security which led to a totally avoidable mutiny, and the absolute waste of time that was the Casino planet/Slicer subplots. If you want to spend that much screen time on something, it ought to be somewhat meaningful.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 16:31:07


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Leia planned to become Jabba’s sex slave?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 16:39:18


Post by: Mr Morden


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Leia planned to become Jabba’s sex slave?


Depends on the fiction you read.....

Not really - she just got cuaght,


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 16:54:44


Post by: Henry


Voss wrote:
 Super Ready wrote:

Honestly, you are the first person I've seen to level these specific criticisms, and to that I say fair enough. I don't agree, but with the exception of the derivative copying point - I loved TLJ for the new things it tried - at least they're more valid than every other argument I've come across.


Then you weren't really looking at actual criticism of the film. Terrible storytelling and pacing in particular were very common problem points, even here in the endless SW movie threads. I know I ranted about them enough.

Yeah, it seems really weird to say that they've never seen a criticism of the film that addresses why it is an awful piece of film making, when that's what most of the criticisms of the film I've seen focus on. The couple of things I liked about the film were cranky Luke and the Rey/Kylo connection.

The rest of the film was bad pacing, bad plot, poor use of characters, bad script, complete destruction of the universes verisimilitude and just everything bad about how to make a film. There was the core of a good story there but it was wrapped in layers of bad.

The Unbridled Rage take on TLJ is pretty close to my opinion of it.

Was it a disappointment to me? I decided not to see it in the cinema as I got the feeling it wasn't going to be worth it. Same for RoSW. When I did get around to watching them they were as bad as I thought they'd be, so no they weren't a disappointment.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 17:04:09


Post by: Backfire


 LordofHats wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
KK tried to do what Kevin Feige and Marvel have done without any understanding of what it is KF and Marvel actually do.


This is the real problem.


Kennedy is a big-time producer who has produced many blockbusters. She is one of the most experienced producers in Hollywood...and I think this was part of the problem. For her, Star Wars trilogy was just another day in the office. Hey, I have three movies to produce, I'll go around hiring directors, securing funding, making contracts and overseeing they don't burn all that money at once, job done, I have done this dozens of times before. She didn't realize that for a serialized setting-intensive trilogy you need an overall theme and story arc, it's not a mechanistic task but you need some sort of vision for it.

 LordofHats wrote:

I disagree with most JJ hate, but JJ has never seemed to be able to recognize gak writing when he sees it. Otherwise he wouldn't drag the same three gakky writers into pretty much every big project he makes and succeed in spite of them when he succeeds. I also don't think TFA forced TLJ to be such a gakky movie.


TFA hurt any possible sequel in more ways most people realize. Ending of the TFA is problematic because it forces anyone who starts the next project continue from very same moment TFA ended. In all other Star Wars movies, significant off-screen time takes place between them. Transition between TFA and TLJ is only one where no time passes. Finn is in a coma and Rey is handing lightsaber over for Luke. These have to be addressed immediately when the next movie starts. Finn's coma instantly creates the problem that his character does not progress at all. In TLJ he's still the same guy he was in TFA - a grunt whose utility was that he worked as a janitor for First Order. It's hard place to begin building the character up and led to very issues Boyega was unhappy about Finn's character arc.

Then Rey and Luke. It is evident that this meeting cannot directly lead to an action sequence. Whatever issues Luke is dealing with on his island have to be addressed via character dialogue and interaction, questions raised in the first movie need to be answered. Generally this kind of movie you want first act to be at least somewhat action-heavy, and all other Star Wars movies have it so. But since Rey and Luke have to take it slow, it means the parallel plot - that of the Finn, Poe and rest of the Resistance, has to be some kind of fight or battle. Although Poe is easy to place in such scene, Finn is not because he is just another grunt. So you have to create some kind of circumstances where Finn's only asset - inside knowledge of First Order - is useful again.

I tend to think Johnson should have taken even bigger risk and NOT make first act action-heavy. Maybe start with smaller space battle which ties to Poe's character development. Then take a time jump - similar to ESB - while Rey trains with Luke and has Force meetings with Ren. All the while Finn wakes up and gets trained as a commando or whatever, to improve his character power something plausibly useful for Resistance. It might have been criticized as boring and slow, but it would have addressed several issues in the finished movie and you could have dispensed with the bizarre four-act format TLJ ended up with.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 17:33:23


Post by: Musselman


There have been a few disappointing movies over the years but three that come to mind in the last few years, Baby Driver, Justice League and Aquaman.

Baby Driver seemed it could have been good but the lead actor was not enjoyable to root for, the story was weak and the music was the worst part of the movie to me. Especially since the director did Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, two fantastic movies.

Justice league was just a mess from the very first scene, so bad they are remaking it for crying out loud.

Aquaman was just nonsense to me. It tried so hard to be a marvel movie, it wastes Jason Mamoa as a comedic lead rather than a bad ass haha. The visuals were okay but very dark which ruins 3D screening.

These movies tricked me during the days when I still trusted rotten tomatoes. Wonder Woman is an honorable mention, but only because it was highly rated when in fact it was an above mediocre superhero movie.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 19:00:21


Post by: trexmeyer


TLJ didn't have to start from the end of TFA it just had to tie in. RJ could've written it in media res for example. I think there are other, more critical issues with TFA. I also don't think the sequels should've been done in the first place. The best bit of Star Wars (imo) is the KotOR setting, primarily because it distanced enough from the Lucas-era that the writers have much more freedom.

Anything immediately following RTJ has to have the following: Grandmaster Luke (or at least he's on the way to that), a rebuilt (or rebuilding) Jedi Order, Leia and Han marry, and a New Republic. The EU had it's flaws, but an overwhelming majority liked this those elements. Dropping any of those is going to require some excellent writing to explain why x didn't happen and JJ doesn't have that degree of skill.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 19:41:24


Post by: Super Ready


Musselman wrote:
Aquaman was just nonsense to me. It tried so hard to be a marvel movie, it wastes Jason Mamoa as a comedic lead rather than a bad ass haha. The visuals were okay but very dark which ruins 3D screening.

Well, I loved Aquaman, but I get why some might be unhappy with the character's treatment in the humour stakes. But dark?! That sounds to me like an issue with whatever cinema you saw it at. I saw it both at the cinema in 2D and at home on DVD, and in both cases it's very bright and colourful throughout - the only exceptions being the scenes that are supposed to be dark (the dive into the great deep, and the storm at night along the coastline).

It's a known issue, but the crux of it is - cinemas are supposed to increase the brightness of 3D movies to compensate for wearing the dark glasses. But a lot don't, because it wears out the projector bulbs quicker.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 21:27:47


Post by: Backfire


 trexmeyer wrote:
TLJ didn't have to start from the end of TFA it just had to tie in. RJ could've written it in media res for example. I think there are other, more critical issues with TFA.


'In media res' would have been even more daring for Star Wars what either JJ or RJ did with the movies. I'm personally all for it, but it might have been seen too highbrow. Nothing like that has been done in SW. And sure thing, both TFA and TLJ had issues, though generally they are not the issues most commonly stated by the critics. It's same thing with 'Phantom Menace' - many people are like "oh it would have been good but for Jar Jar" - nope...

And Star Wars episodes 1 & 2 disappointed me for sure. In fact Phantom Menace did not disappoint me that much at first, I was too distracted by all the cool new Star Wars scenery. I had been warned about Jar Jar and thought 'okay, he wasn't so awful, the kid Anakin was way worse but other than that this was okay' but the movie did not survive rewatching AT ALL.

Then I had somewhat higher hopes for Attack of the Clones because previews looked good - less Jar Jar, Anakin is grownup. Lucas has learned from mistakes right? And then I saw it and was like nope...
And then I had no hope for the last part and it was actually the best of them and also did not disappoint me because of my low expectations. Wasn't like GOOD or anything but did not actively insult me like 1 & 2.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 22:40:24


Post by: Kayback


 Lance845 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.


Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember when The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?


Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 22:49:06


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Kayback wrote:


Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.


When did Rey defeat a Sith Lord by using force powers without some kind of general tutoring on how to tap in to the force?

Because you can't be talking about Kylo Ren as he was demonstrated clearly in the first film to not be a Sith lord and also was grievously wounded at the time she beat him (by doing the same trick Luke did at the end of Star Wars, clearing your mind and allowing the force to act through you).


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 22:56:35


Post by: Lance845


Kayback wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

3) Every other force-user seen gets trained before they can use their nifty talents. Every. Single. One. Except Rey. 'Nuff said.

Except Anakin, who was using the force to fly podracers as a child, when no other human could do it.


Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.

You know how the jedi know to test people for their medichlorians or whatever? They show signs of being force sensitive. Sometimes it's small thinks like knowing stuff or getting feelings. And sometimes it's bigger stuff like pulling an object to them when they need it in times of stress.

Hey, remember when The Child in Mandalorian lifted that giant monster using it's mind? Who trained it to do that?

But hey. Only Rey, am I right?


Not one example you've given were multiple force users. Being able to use your one gift, acceptably, is vastly different from being able to confront a Sith Lord and winning using an array of powers without learning how to do them previously.


1) Way to move someone elses goal posts.

2) Kylo Ren isn't a sith anything.

3) No force user has 1 "power". Using the force is a singular thing that can be done for many effects. And COMPLETELY untrained people with no knowledge or understanding of the force who were raised during the empires existence when jedi information was being actively suppressed were able to do 1 or more things on their own instinctively. Jedi training allows you to focus and harness all the force can do when and how they want to do it. But it doesn't change that anyone could do those things and that they mostly do it during times of stress and desperation on their own.

4) Rey is someone who was raised post empire to hear about all the many things the jedi could do and then managed to do them during times of stress. BTW now that the story is there are super force user bloodlines shes also the granddaughter of one of the most powerful sith lords who ever existed. She actually IS that powerful and SHOULD be doing those things.

5) If we are going to take the info from 789 seriously then Palp himself was probably subconsciously influencing everything about her to tap into things she didn't know about every step of the way. This is obviously a thing he can do since he can even do it through proxies. Palp influenced Snoke to influence Ren from accross the galaxy while being trained by Luke. So you really think he can't influence Rey to tap into gak when she is his preferred new host body?

Try again.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 23:55:01


Post by: Matt Swain


Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 23:56:24


Post by: Mr Morden


 Matt Swain wrote:
Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?



Have you actually bothered to read the thread - plenty of examples.....


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/25 23:59:02


Post by: Matt Swain


The last couple pages seemed to have turned into a star wars only thread.

If you really hate she sw sequels, get the 'heir to the empire' trilogy by timothy zahn and red them, they're waaay better!


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 00:03:46


Post by: Mr Morden


 Matt Swain wrote:
The last couple pages seemed to have turned into a star wars only thread.


So post the films you are dispaointed with then.

The most recent Star wars films were very disapointing for so many but then as noted so were the Matrix sequals,

I was told Inception was a clever film - but watched it and found it wasn;t


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 00:53:16


Post by: creeping-deth87


No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux. They scrapped the entire EU to give themselves a blank slate to do more stories in this universe and they settled on.... just doing ANH again. I have other issues with the movie too, like the pacing and a protagonist that doesn't earn a single one of her victories, but the total retread of what came before is definitely my biggest problem with that film. TLJ and RoS I went into with zero expectations so I can't say either of them disappointed. They were just as trash as I expected them to be.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 01:21:53


Post by: Voss


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.


That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 02:31:41


Post by: bullyboy


just finished reading The Last Templar and thought I'd check out the TV movie based on the book. Now, the book was no Da Vanci Code, but was readable. I couldn't get past 5 minutes of the movie (it's on YouTube if you dare).....sure it's a TV movie, but it's like they actually tried to make it bad. oh well.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 02:49:23


Post by: creeping-deth87


Voss wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.


That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.


Reception was still overwhelmingly positive though, that's what I was getting at. TFA was a very well liked film at release. A lot of fans who liked it were cognizant that it was a remake and didn't give a damn, they loved it anyway.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 02:50:24


Post by: trexmeyer


 Matt Swain wrote:
Has anyone ever been disappointed by a movie not in the star wars series?



I went to a trilogy prescreening of Unbreakable, Split, and Glass. It was my first time seeing Unbreakable on the big screen. I can't overstate how much I love that film. I tear at multiple points every time. I believe it was my second time watching Split in theaters. I enjoyed it again. Had a couple of really good beers. It was a good time.

Then they showed an interview with M. Night. He was impressively inarticulate for having made some of my favorite films (Unbreakable, Signs, The Village, Split) and I was very worried going into Glass. It took less than an hour for my fears to be realized. Glass was awful. I haven't watched again and won't. I can understand the intent of the movie, but the execution was terrible. So many little things were done wrong that could have easily been rectified. I don't know how he managed to screw it up that badly.

I also re-watched the four Indiana Jones movies a couple of years ago for the first time in over a decade and was shocked at how middling they were. As an homage to old adventure serials they're fine, but the praise they receive from the general population is vastly overstated. I'd go so far as to say they're decent films for the action sequences, but suffer from poor writing and clearly mark a degradation in quality for blockbuster action flicks. They're comparable in quality to Brendan Frasier's Mummy, which I do enjoy, but that is with the knowledge that it is a B movie at best.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 09:55:03


Post by: Lance845


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Voss wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.


That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.


Reception was still overwhelmingly positive though, that's what I was getting at. TFA was a very well liked film at release. A lot of fans who liked it were cognizant that it was a remake and didn't give a damn, they loved it anyway.


The last SW movies were the prequels. A rehash of episode 4 is a massive step up.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 10:17:42


Post by: insaniak


Also, a rehash of the same general story line is nothing particularly noteworthy in a setting that's been rehashing the same ideas for the last 30 years in the EU. What's more important than whether or not the plot is revolutionary is whether or not the story is told in a way that is entertaining. And it was.

It was silly and full of plot holes, but it was fun.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 10:29:41


Post by: Pacific


Recently watched through all of the Star Wars films again (because everything is locked down again now and that seemed like a good use of the time!)

What I will say is that the prequels seemed better this time around. I don't know if it was because my expectations were somewhat lower (and, for the Phantom Menace in particular, they benefited from not having the unbelievable weight of expectation and hype that they did upon release) but I actually quite enjoyed them. Yes Hayden Christensen was a product of that time-honoured Hollywood tradition of choosing an actor for their looks rather than their acting ability, but I think once you realise that they are very different modes of film to the originals (being much grander in scope and much more po-faced/less fun) then I thought they worked quite well. Some great individual performances as well (Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan stands out, and it was a shame Christopher Lee didn't have more screen time)

By contrast, with the exception of Episide VII The Force Awakens (which is just a lot of fun), I didn't think they stood up as well to repeat viewing. It was like someone wrote an equation of the original series, or the bits that had come back from a focus group as being enjoyable to watch or fundamental to the experiences, mixed them up in a bag and then put them into a new film. Not to say they are not very well made films and don't have some good action sequences etc. By contrast I absolutely loved Rogue One, which managed to be attached to the other films without being completely governed by them, and I think actually managed to do something a bit new. And it had the balls to do a 'bad' ending, which again I always find impressive that the film makers have managed to get past the big studios and focus groups.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 11:22:17


Post by: Henry


 Pacific wrote:
And it had the balls to do a 'bad' ending, which again I always find impressive that the film makers have managed to get past the big studios and focus groups.

I've seen criticisms of Rogue One where people were disapointed because they already knew the outcome before watching the film (rebels get the information and a lot of people die).

That's like suggesting Downfall is a disappointing movie because we know it's going to finish with Hitler eating a bullet sandwich.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 11:49:50


Post by: Backfire


My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.

Then another big disappointment for me, partially again due to somewhat unreasonable expectations I loaded into the film: House of the Flying Daggers.

See I first saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and I LOVE that movie. It's a work of genius, not so much due to action scenes but because of awesomely nuanced characters. It is nothing sort of mind-boggling how they have managed to build so intricate character relationships into one movie less than 2 hours long. Most dedicated drama movies don't manage that.

Then I saw Hero, and again loved it. It wasn't quite as awesome as CT/HD, but still good and most of all, exceptionally beautiful, a visual masterpiece. So then came House of the Flying Daggers starring Zhang Ziyi whom I adore. This must be another good one!

In a word...NO. The plot didn't make slightest sense. Character motivations were completely undecipherable. Oh she was only PRETENDING half the movie. Why? For what purpose? That guy gets a dagger in his back and keeps it there for the rest of the movie! Wouldn't it hurt like hell and kill him? What the hell is happening?
In purely objective terms, the movie maybe wasn't absolute trash, but as I had started off with two masterpieces of the genre, a mediocre movie was going to feel huge letdown.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 12:06:56


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Backfire wrote:
My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.


Just because something isn't 100% needed for an overall arc to make sense or progress doesn't mean that it has no value to the wider story of the world. It can add depth to the world, flesh out characters etc.

The 12 Labours of Heracles are not needed for the story arc of the Argonautica yet they are also a story worth telling and provide depth to the mythology and character of Heracles in that story, for example.

I also do not follow how the weakness being purposefully added to the Death Star in any way takes away the achievement of the rebels in Star Wars. It did not make them identifying said weakness from the blueprints and then exploiting it any easier. Knowing that there is a weakness somewhere in a construction as complex as the Death Star, which is also so slight as to be overlooked by the Empire, doesn't actually reduce the work required to find it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 12:12:15


Post by: Overread


My only problem with Rogue One is that its more of a fan-service whistle-stop film than it is a pure story film.

What I mean by this is that its clear there's a slew of Extended Universe characters in there who are big names to comic/book readers; but for film viewers alone they are almost all unknown names. So they each get somewhat limited screen time here and there. Granted the yare very characterful so they don't necessarily need a huge backstory for all of them.

Granted killing them off by the end does at least mean that it resolves most of those characters which is honestly a smart move for a stand alone film. It ends with those characters gone so they aren't left asking questions and the point we get too is answered through A New Hope.

Perhaps the only real downside is that Vader is far more dynamic/mobile/powerful than we see in the New Hope and following films. Which has been an issue since they did the Prequels.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 12:19:03


Post by: Backfire


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Backfire wrote:
My main criticism of Rogue One is that it was not needed in the overall story arc. It explains something which needs no explanation. Even all those prequels have more of a purpose. Rogue One actually takes away from the achievement of the Rebel Alliance in ANH by revealing that the famous weak point was actually purpose-built.


Just because something isn't 100% needed for an overall arc to make sense or progress doesn't mean that it has no value to the wider story of the world. It can add depth to the world, flesh out characters etc.


All of the main characters were throwaway, they existed only for the movie and died at the end, I suppose it did add Jedi Temple, that was destroyed too...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I also do not follow how the weakness being purposefully added to the Death Star in any way takes away the achievement of the rebels in Star Wars. It did not make them identifying said weakness from the blueprints and then exploiting it any easier. Knowing that there is a weakness somewhere in a construction as complex as the Death Star, which is also so slight as to be overlooked by the Empire, doesn't actually reduce the work required to find it.


Of course it does. It's a difference between finding something out by yourself, vs having a huge fluorescent arrow pointing at it.
Actually the Death Star probably would have been impossible to destroy for the Rebel Alliance without Erso purposedfully designing it so it could be destroyed.

Complicated weapons system have weaknesses often overlooked in the design process. It's something intrinsic and doesn't need explaining or elaborating. It's like Prince of Wales being vulnerable to torpedo strike to prop funnel, and Bismarck having a single point of failure in the rudder. Legend of sinking of Bismarck doesn't need a German ship designer telling us "yea I hated Hitler so I designed the ship with a fatal weakness".


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 12:26:29


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Backfire wrote:

Of course it does. It's a difference between finding something out by yourself, vs having a huge fluorescent arrow pointing at it.


But there was no fluorescent arrow, they never were told what the weakness was, only that a weakness existed and they hoped they'd be able to identify it from the Death Star blueprints. There was zero guarantee that getting the plans would actually mean they would be able to find the weakness, let alone then exploit it to destroy the Death Star.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 12:53:30


Post by: Henry


Backfire wrote:
All of the main characters were throwaway, they existed only for the movie and died at the end, I suppose it did add Jedi Temple, that was destroyed too...

So by that logic does that mean all the characters in Alien apart from Ripley are throwaway characters? Or all the marines that died in Aliens are throwaway characters? Or
Leonardo DiCaprio's character is throwaway in Titanic?

On second thought, don't answer the last one.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 13:12:09


Post by: bbb


Movies that involve time paradoxes get me annoyed.

The Lake House - I enjoyed it right up to the point we realize there is a time paradox and then I checked out.

Interstellar - again, I was having a fine time with it, right up until we realize it's all a time paradox

Arrival - it was interesting, and then, BOOM, time paradox


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 14:27:58


Post by: Backfire


 Henry wrote:
Backfire wrote:
All of the main characters were throwaway, they existed only for the movie and died at the end, I suppose it did add Jedi Temple, that was destroyed too...

So by that logic does that mean all the characters in Alien apart from Ripley are throwaway characters? Or all the marines that died in Aliens are throwaway characters? Or
Leonardo DiCaprio's character is throwaway in Titanic?

On second thought, don't answer the last one.


No. The original point was that Rogue One style "midquel" can serve purpose for example by 'deepening the characters', however since the main characters don't exist in other SW movies and all die in the end, Rogue One does not serve such a purpose.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 15:11:02


Post by: Voss


 Overread wrote:

Granted killing them off by the end does at least mean that it resolves most of those characters which is honestly a smart move for a stand alone film. It ends with those characters gone so they aren't left asking questions and the point we get too is answered through A New Hope.


There's definitely something to this. Several Rebels and Clone Wars characters get stuffed into bizarre situations and boxes to justify the obvious 'why didn't they help?' question. Many of those answers were... unsatisfactory.


Though going back to the idea that the characters were 'throwaway,' a character (or place) isn't 'throwaway' just because they died/got destroyed. That there are other people out there doing meaningful things beyond the protagonists adds a lot to a setting.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 15:34:24


Post by: Kayback


 Lance845 wrote:

Or that little slave kid who force pulled the broom into his hands.

Which appears to be the one trick he could do.

Or Kyle Katarn pulling his blaster to his hand.

Which appeared to be the one trick they could do


Or Ezra in Rebels before he gets any real training.

I'll admit I don't recall Rebels that well and will have to check up on that


Or how people think Han is force sensitive and it's how he keeps narrowly escaping his bs.

Which appears to be his one trick, which may or may not even exist and be linked to the Force in the SW movie universe.

Or the literal feth tons of cases in all starwars media where people are shown to be using force powers without training.


Anakin being force sensitive enough to fly in pod races. Luke being.... whatever he could do besides being a farmboy, unable to do much until he's actually received training from a Jedi master.



But hey. Only Rey, am I right?


Yeah, Rey. The one person who can fly a space ship without any training, shoot AA guns without any training, fight with a lightsaber without any training against a person who IS trained, using mind control without any training, using Force Push/Pull without any training but nah, nothing wrong with that.

2) Kylo Ren isn't a sith anything.

Except a trainee Jedi, has been exposed to the Sith under the tutelage of the Emperor and if not an actual Lord but he's still strong enough to stop a blaster bolt in it's tracks. And has had an infinite amount more training than Rey.

4)... shes also the granddaughter of one of the most powerful sith lords who ever existed. She actually IS that powerful and SHOULD be doing those things.
Yeah that's part of the bad storyline. It's incompetent writing with the foreshadowing done in the previous movies, it's also lazy AF and disrespectful to anything "Skywalker". Subverting expectations isn't clever when it in an insult.

5) If we are going to take the info from 789 seriously then Palp himself was probably subconsciously influencing everything about her to tap into things she didn't know about every step of the way. This is obviously a thing he can do since he can even do it through proxies. Palp influenced Snoke to influence Ren from accross the galaxy while being trained by Luke. So you really think he can't influence Rey to tap into gak when she is his preferred new host body?
This is an almost decent explanation but then opens up new issues.

A Town Called Malus wrote:.When did Rey defeat a Sith Lord by using force powers without some kind of general tutoring on how to tap in to the force?

Because you can't be talking about Kylo Ren as he was demonstrated clearly in the first film to not be a Sith lord and also was grievously wounded at the time she beat him (by doing the same trick Luke did at the end of Star Wars, clearing your mind and allowing the force to act through you).
A trick Luke had to learn from a Jedi instructor. Remind me again who instructed Rey, or was that another unlearnt Force skill she's displaying? I'm losing track of how many of those she has.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 bullyboy wrote:
no Da Vanci Code,



Angels and Daemons.

That movie.

The book was decent enough so long as you switched your brain off a bit at some of the non historical elements. But as a movie? I really thought they'd gussy it up, but they didn't. They even dumbed it down a bit.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 15:44:26


Post by: Overread


I think its important to realise that the Force isn't like it is in a computer game. It's not a case that you learn one skill and that's the only skill you can ever use because its the only one you put skill points into.

Instead its a more ethereal force and manipulation. So yes if you learn to move something with the Force you might well learn to move bigger things; but you might also learn other abilities alongside. Indeed the untrained is perhaps more likely to accidentally find these other tricks because they lack the mental training and discipline to remain focused on the one thing they do want to happen.

So an untrained or inexperienced "might" end up firing off "abilities" or manipulations they don't want, esp in the heat of a fight or highly emotional moment. Most untrained with a weaker connection might not even realise they did these things or the impact of them is so slight they don't cause any real effect.
For a highly force sensitive individual with a powerful connection these random draws likely do result in far more impact and effect.

Thing is its untrained and unasked for so what they do want to happen might not; but what they weren't expecting to happen can be of great enough magnitude to help them.



So I can believe that someone untrained, but very sensitive to the force, once they unlock the initial connection, could well advance faster and further in abilities even without training. Indeed without training they might well end up "wild" and uncontrolled. Even a danger to themselves and others. Training isn't just about learning how to do things, its about focusing the connection and getting it to do what you want when you want how you want.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 16:05:31


Post by: creeping-deth87


Yeah the idea that Rey's progression is just like every other Force sensitive person we've seen in the films is demonstrably false. She's one of the most poorly written characters I've ever seen in any franchise.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 21:07:55


Post by: Dysartes


Force-sensitive characters having a "trick" they can do with the Force without training was something that was established in the EU (before Darth Mouse purged it). Reliability tended to depend on the ability and whether the user tried to practice it.

Even with the simpler abilities, like Force Push/Pull would be, you might be able to use it in the heat of the moment when your emotions are high, but not when you're in a calmer state of mind. Arguably, that's because your subconscious is lightly using the Dark Side rather than the Light Side; power from emotion, rather than discipline.

However, even for such individuals, they'd need exposure and training to be able to pick up on how to manifest other abilities - and that's after they've learned how to safely manifest something they can already do - the Jedi Academy trilogy looks at this, for example, as does I, Jedi.

Even from a powerful bloodline, you don't end up with a "Random" button you can push to manifest Force Powers without training. Corran Horn, for example, starts off with an untrained ability to use Alter Mind - Ben Kenobi's trick - but without training from Luke and exercises to work on, he can't use it reliably and he can't manifest other powers.

The key thing is that he doesn't even know he's doing it the first couple of times it's described in the books - he just really doesn't want to be seen, and the power helps him just enough to get away with it. Once he knows he's force-sensitive, and tries to mind trick a Stormtrooper to help his allies without training, he gets shot in the gut instead...

Heck, from what I recall from the EU, even Luke doesn't randomly manifest new abilities without training - he has to track down holocrons and other training materials once Ghost Ben stops turning up.

Now, I've not seen TCAoLSbtCRJ or TRoS, so I don't know what training Rey is shown (or montage'd) to have had. But from what people are describing here, she power progression is well outside of the norms we see elsewhere - even from other protagonists.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 21:16:31


Post by: Lance845


Again, it's not a video game. Force push, force pull, force choke. Deflecting objects with the force. Lifting an x wing. These are not different powers. This is just a person using the force to reach out to influence the world around them since it exists all around them and within all things.

Influencing minds? It's the same thing to a different effect.

Force healing? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

Force Lightning? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

There isn't a list of force powers that a person in the world needs to invest in individually. There is just the force and your understanding of it that allows you to impose your will on it or you clearing your mind to allow the force to work through you.

You can't list the books you like that are no longer in cannon to justify your interpretation of it. The amount of books in the EU is vast with NO oversight. Books in the EU are not just out of canon. They are contradictory of each other. It's almost as bad as 40ks lore in terms of none of it being able to be used as a base line for anything.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 21:36:49


Post by: Overread


Lets not forget Anakin was using the Force to Pod Race without any training. That's perhaps tapping into powers like precognition, reflexes and likely for his age a higher level of intelligence/capability to build things and have them work. Heck looking at the size and structure of the pod he built he might even draw on extra strength as well when not realising it.


Anakin stood out, Luke stood out a bit but not in the same way. Heck don't forget in the end fight he loses, he's not as experienced nor as powerful. Luke wasn't "destined" in the same way as Anakin. Rey is another like Anakin, destined and even designed to be empowered. So the idea that she can tap into the force far more easily makes sense.

It's within the realms of possibility within the setting that she can use the Force at a higher level with less training; even if its perhaps less focused/controlled and relies more heavily on a heightened emotional state of mind.


I would say its perhaps one of the more believable elements of the series of films. However I can appreciate that with the other faults it can all somewhat add up; the small faults appear bigger because they can be seen alongside other smaller and major faults.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 22:07:02


Post by: Azreal13


 bbb wrote:


Arrival - it was interesting, and then, BOOM, time paradox


Admittedly it's a while since I've seen it, but there's no time paradox in the movie that I recall.

The time Amy Adams' character spends with the aliens is being told retrospectively, and she is given a certain degree of precognition as a result of that experience, but there's no time travel involved to generate a paradox?

The point is that, despite knowing about the ultimate failure of her relationship and loss of her daughter in advance, she chooses to proceed and embrace the happiness she will experience before that time. The aliens give her the gift of choice.

But I may be wrong like I said, it's been a year or two.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 22:11:45


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Azreal13 wrote:
 bbb wrote:


Arrival - it was interesting, and then, BOOM, time paradox


Admittedly it's a while since I've seen it, but there's no time paradox in the movie that I recall.

The time Amy Adams' character spends with the aliens is being told retrospectively, and she is given a certain degree of precognition as a result of that experience, but there's no time travel involved to generate a paradox?

The point is that, despite knowing about the ultimate failure of her relationship and loss of her daughter in advance, she chooses to proceed and embrace the happiness she will experience before that time. The aliens give her the gift of choice.

But I may be wrong like I said, it's been a year or two.



She is only able to stop the chinese attack on the aliens because she knows the secret of the chinese general, and she only knows that because in the future he tells her. So she knows the secret to get him to stop before the event of her finding out said secret. That is transmission of information from the future lightcone into the past lightcone (i.e time travel), which breaks causality.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 22:21:08


Post by: Lance845


He only tells her in the future because she says it to him in the past. She only says it to him in the past because she knows how everything will lay out. Everything that will happen happens. She was always going to tell him and he was always going to explain to her why those words mattered. It's not a question of free will at that point. She knows the path of linear time and simply walks it because there is no other path.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 22:29:35


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
 bbb wrote:


Arrival - it was interesting, and then, BOOM, time paradox


Admittedly it's a while since I've seen it, but there's no time paradox in the movie that I recall.

The time Amy Adams' character spends with the aliens is being told retrospectively, and she is given a certain degree of precognition as a result of that experience, but there's no time travel involved to generate a paradox?

The point is that, despite knowing about the ultimate failure of her relationship and loss of her daughter in advance, she chooses to proceed and embrace the happiness she will experience before that time. The aliens give her the gift of choice.

But I may be wrong like I said, it's been a year or two.



She is only able to stop the chinese attack on the aliens because she knows the secret of the chinese general, and she only knows that because in the future he tells her. So she knows the secret to get him to the stop before the event of her finding out said secret. That is transmission of information from the future lightcone into the past lightcone (i.e time travel), which breaks causality.


I haven’t seen the film, but from what I remember in the short story causality, and linear time as we experience it, is all an illusion caused by our limited perception of spacetime. She can’t change the future she sees, but at the same time there is no paradox with future revelations being part of the present because it is all simultaneous from another perception.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 22:53:56


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I haven’t seen the film, but from what I remember in the short story causality, and linear time as we experience it, is all an illusion caused by our limited perception of spacetime. She can’t change the future she sees, but at the same time there is no paradox with future revelations being part of the present because it is all simultaneous from another perception.


Which is nice but it isn't how spacetime works. Spacetime interval is an invariant quantity from all reference frames, so if one reference frame measures the spacetime interval between two events as zero (the only definition of simultaneous which matters in relativity due to the variable nature of time and space from observer to observer), then all reference frames would do so. Also, the only way to achieve a spacetime interval of zero is to travel at the speed of light.

Also Also, if there were a reference frame where all events are occurring simultaneously, regardless of the position, motion of the observer etc. then that would be a universal reference frame which is a big no in relativity.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 23:11:32


Post by: Matt Swain


While it was infinitely better than "temple of doom" (Ugh) I must admit that Crystal skull was a so bad in places I literally could not believe what I was seeing.

Not just the fridge scene,but the "pouring gunpowder into the air to trace a magnetic field" bit, and the dust flowed around walls and corners. Good ghawd how could they have done that?!?!?

Seriously, that just goes against basic, everyday, familiar reality. Even if gunpowder floated in air and was drawn to a magnetic source it would go straight to it and plaster on the nearest wall between it and the source. You can't even suspend disbelief to make that scene work. The movie actually abused the audience by expecting them to just accept something that was just clearly wrong. Any kid who played with those cheap toys where you mover iron filings around with a magnet thru a clear plastic shield to put "hair" on a guy's face and head knows magnetism doesn't work like that....

As for the scene where the ants drag a russian into an anthill, by then I was actually kind of numb. All I could think was "At least it's better than the second one..."



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/26 23:16:26


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Well, that is certainly a hot take where Crystal Skull isn't the worst of the Indiana Jones films

I think one of the most disappointing films I've seen recently was the Tomb Raider reboot film. They were handed what could have been a really good adventure film in the form of the reboot game. Just take the best set pieces from the game (such as the plane crash, that first encounter with the Oni etc.), trim down the plot a bit and tweak it to tie it together in a feature film length and job's done.

But no, they wasted minutes riding around London on bicycles, more minutes fighting around Hong Kong, stripped out all the extra characters like Sam, Roth and Noah, stripped out all of the epic set pieces and, to top it all off, also removed any supernatural elements from the story along with a huge change in the nature of Himiko which also destroys the idea of being trapped on the island in the first place.

So much wasted potential.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 00:00:05


Post by: Super Ready


 Matt Swain wrote:
the "pouring gunpowder into the air to trace a magnetic field" bit, and the dust flowed around walls and corners. Good ghawd how could they have done that?!?!?

Seriously, that just goes against basic, everyday, familiar reality. Even if gunpowder floated in air and was drawn to a magnetic source it would go straight to it and plaster on the nearest wall between it and the source. You can't even suspend disbelief to make that scene work. The movie actually abused the audience by expecting them to just accept something that was just clearly wrong. Any kid who played with those cheap toys where you mover iron filings around with a magnet thru a clear plastic shield to put "hair" on a guy's face and head knows magnetism doesn't work like that.... [/i]

Y'know, if I could remember that scene I probably would have put Crystal Skull in this thread myself already. ...I must have blanked it out, or maybe the scene was so dumb it immediately killed all of my brain cells that witnessed it. Who knows?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 00:16:12


Post by: insaniak


 Overread wrote:

Anakin stood out, Luke stood out a bit but not in the same way. Heck don't forget in the end fight he loses, he's not as experienced nor as powerful. Luke wasn't "destined" in the same way as Anakin. Rey is another like Anakin, destined and even designed to be empowered. So the idea that she can tap into the force far more easily makes sense. .

Moreso, given her link with Kylo Ren. I would assume, now that the link is more fleshed out in the story, that a lot of her access to powers with no training is actually coming from the fact that he knows how to do those things, and she's drawing subconsciously on that knowledge.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 01:06:41


Post by: Vulcan


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Voss wrote:
 creeping-deth87 wrote:
No film disappointed me more than TFA. What was especially frustrating to me was that no one at all seemed to care that it was just ANH redux.


That was a major complaint for months after that film. I wouldn't say 'no one seemed to care.'

drop 'a force awakens rehash' into google. Everything from major entertainment sites to metacritic to comic book sites to reviews: Rehash, rehash, rehash.
First couple pages are mostly 2015/2016, but they continue onwards. Saying it is, arguing that it isn't, asking for polls about whether it is... people definitely cared about it being a rehash.


Reception was still overwhelmingly positive though, that's what I was getting at. TFA was a very well liked film at release. A lot of fans who liked it were cognizant that it was a remake and didn't give a damn, they loved it anyway.


I'm not sure I'd say it was widely loved, but it was widely accepted as the entry into a new trilogy that would lead to bigger and better things. I described it as 'being there to fill a hole, and filling a hole is rarely exciting'.

Which is what make the dumpster fire that is TLJ even more disappointing. Among other things, we wanted to know who had trained Rey and then wiped her memory of the training. The flashback vision of her in the rain before Kylo Ren and the Knights of Ren made her being a survivor of Luke's students the leading theory, and her memories of being dumped on Jakku as a child were false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Again, it's not a video game. Force push, force pull, force choke. Deflecting objects with the force. Lifting an x wing. These are not different powers. This is just a person using the force to reach out to influence the world around them since it exists all around them and within all things.

Influencing minds? It's the same thing to a different effect.

Force healing? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

Force Lightning? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

There isn't a list of force powers that a person in the world needs to invest in individually. There is just the force and your understanding of it that allows you to impose your will on it or you clearing your mind to allow the force to work through you.

You can't list the books you like that are no longer in cannon to justify your interpretation of it. The amount of books in the EU is vast with NO oversight. Books in the EU are not just out of canon. They are contradictory of each other. It's almost as bad as 40ks lore in terms of none of it being able to be used as a base line for anything.


Given the quality of the Disney movies is down there alongside the quality of the worst of the novels, I'll use whatever I want to argue the point that Rey is a Mary Sue and by definition of Mary Sue, VERY POORLY WRITTEN.

Want to fix the training issue? Have Rey holding an artifact that fans would identify as being from some past Jedi. Perhaps Asokha Tano's cloak. Establish that in her past she spent time with another Jedi even if she does not remember it and her being a prodigy in the force becomes MUCH easier to justify and you'd spare billions of hours of internet debates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 Overread wrote:

Anakin stood out, Luke stood out a bit but not in the same way. Heck don't forget in the end fight he loses, he's not as experienced nor as powerful. Luke wasn't "destined" in the same way as Anakin. Rey is another like Anakin, destined and even designed to be empowered. So the idea that she can tap into the force far more easily makes sense. .

Moreso, given her link with Kylo Ren. I would assume, now that the link is more fleshed out in the story, that a lot of her access to powers with no training is actually coming from the fact that he knows how to do those things, and she's drawing subconsciously on that knowledge.


Ah, yes, the 'force dyad'. Something never mentioned before as even being a possibility... and then being extremely poorly executed to boot.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 01:28:17


Post by: insaniak


 Vulcan wrote:

Ah, yes, the 'force dyad'. Something never mentioned before as even being a possibility... and then being extremely poorly executed to boot.

There are things in pretty much every sequel movie, in any franchise, that were not mentioned in the preceding movies. Hell, if you want to object to Star Wars movies including things that were never mentioned before, you'd see an awful lot fewer ships in ESB and RotJ.

As for being 'poorly executed', that's really going to come down to personal taste. For me, the way the Dyad developed over the three movies was one of the better things about the sequels, which I enjoyed overall. Clearly, YMMV.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 01:51:32


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Matt Swain wrote:
While it was infinitely better than "temple of doom" (Ugh) I must admit that Crystal skull was a so bad in places I literally could not believe what I was seeing.

Not just the fridge scene,but the "pouring gunpowder into the air to trace a magnetic field" bit, and the dust flowed around walls and corners. Good ghawd how could they have done that?!?!?

Seriously, that just goes against basic, everyday, familiar reality. Even if gunpowder floated in air and was drawn to a magnetic source it would go straight to it and plaster on the nearest wall between it and the source. You can't even suspend disbelief to make that scene work. The movie actually abused the audience by expecting them to just accept something that was just clearly wrong. Any kid who played with those cheap toys where you mover iron filings around with a magnet thru a clear plastic shield to put "hair" on a guy's face and head knows magnetism doesn't work like that....

As for the scene where the ants drag a russian into an anthill, by then I was actually kind of numb. All I could think was "At least it's better than the second one..."



I...I cannot agree with your ranking. Temple of Doom didn’t have the bizarre monkey scene with the Barbara Walters filter, where Shia Leboeff swings faster than a car drives. Objectively, by all conceivable forms of measurement, that alone makes it superior to Crystal Skull. It’s just science. And also art. They both hate that movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I haven’t seen the film, but from what I remember in the short story causality, and linear time as we experience it, is all an illusion caused by our limited perception of spacetime. She can’t change the future she sees, but at the same time there is no paradox with future revelations being part of the present because it is all simultaneous from another perception.


Which is nice but it isn't how spacetime works. Spacetime interval is an invariant quantity from all reference frames, so if one reference frame measures the spacetime interval between two events as zero (the only definition of simultaneous which matters in relativity due to the variable nature of time and space from observer to observer), then all reference frames would do so. Also, the only way to achieve a spacetime interval of zero is to travel at the speed of light.

Also Also, if there were a reference frame where all events are occurring simultaneously, regardless of the position, motion of the observer etc. then that would be a universal reference frame which is a big no in relativity.


Yes, that’s what the specialists in the science fiction story falsely believed about the nature of their fictional universe. That (well, that and linguistics theory) is the point of the story. Our language shapes our universe; the aliens’ language causes such a change in perception that it shattered our model of the universe.

It’s like the time Paul Muad’dib told the Spacing Guild to look to the future and they were all, “that’s not how science works” and Paul’s all, “my genetic memory from my physicist great-great-great-grandfather says otherwise” and the gigantic biological entities that eats sand plankton or something and burns megacalories per second concluded, “stories have to be scientifically accurate, bro.”



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 02:07:10


Post by: trexmeyer


Well, there is no time travel in Arrival.

Amy Adam's character can see the future or, more accurately, no longer views time as linear at all times. At least in regards to her own life since the full scope isn't established in either the short story or the movie. She doesn't change anything. That's kind of one of the major points of the both the film and the short story. Despite knowing the future she doesn't ever act against it. Regardless of what the future will bring. I'm quoting from the story story, second to last paragraph:
From the beginning I knew my destination, and I chose my route accordingly.


Another way to describe the ability that she develops is that she remembers what has already happened.

Here's a link to the story if anyone is interested. It's been up there since before the movie was released. http://www.kameli.net/~raimu/rnd/ted-chiang-story-of-your-life-2000.pdf


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 03:14:53


Post by: Matt Swain


 Super Ready wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
the "pouring gunpowder into the air to trace a magnetic field" bit, and the dust flowed around walls and corners. Good ghawd how could they have done that?!?!?

Seriously, that just goes against basic, everyday, familiar reality. Even if gunpowder floated in air and was drawn to a magnetic source it would go straight to it and plaster on the nearest wall between it and the source. You can't even suspend disbelief to make that scene work. The movie actually abused the audience by expecting them to just accept something that was just clearly wrong. Any kid who played with those cheap toys where you mover iron filings around with a magnet thru a clear plastic shield to put "hair" on a guy's face and head knows magnetism doesn't work like that.... [/i]

Y'know, if I could remember that scene I probably would have put Crystal Skull in this thread myself already. ...I must have blanked it out, or maybe the scene was so dumb it immediately killed all of my brain cells that witnessed it. Who knows?


Hey, if I have to remember it, you have to.

https://youtu.be/RD7VWVtm97M


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 03:43:03


Post by: Ouze


I wouldn't say I was disappointed by Arrival, I liked it - but I have a hard time wrapping my head around the ending. I mean, I get what they mean by nonlinear, but it's still hard for me to, you know, understand it.

I have the same problem with Dr. Manhattan. I can't abstract it out to understand it a different way.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 03:44:38


Post by: Kanluwen


The first "White Noise". God it was atrocious.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 04:33:00


Post by: trexmeyer


 Ouze wrote:
I wouldn't say I was disappointed by Arrival, I liked it - but I have a hard time wrapping my head around the ending. I mean, I get what they mean by nonlinear, but it's still hard for me to, you know, understand it.

I have the same problem with Dr. Manhattan. I can't abstract it out to understand it a different way.


No one understands it. We perceive time in a linear fashion and it's impossible for us to truly comprehend a nonlinear existence or perception of time.

It's similar IMO to the idea that the universe is expanding. Expanding into what? I can understand, on a purely intellectual level, that space is infinite, but I can't begin to comprehend it. Human existence is defined by limitations and endings. I can comprehend a balloon expanding because the area it's expanding it to is known quantity that has defined dimensions. Something undefined is too far removed from my existence to grasp it.

I'll expand on this even further. The issue of the limitation of human knowledge and understanding is a constant problem in speculative fiction. Alien logic only works as long as it remains unexplained. As soon those motives are explained in a way that humans can understand it destroys the mystique and the curtains are pulled down to reveal that the wizard behind the story is just a man. My go to case example is that The X-Files only works so long as the aliens remain unexplained, but this creates the issue that answers Mulder seeks will never revealed. It truly has to be a story where the journey and not the destination is the reward, but the general viewing audience isn't entirely fond of that. The Dark Tower series was, and I believe still is, controversial because of its
Spoiler:
non ending
. For some reason people expect closure in their media. I suppose its because there is no true closure in life and people want to escape from that, if only for a moment.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 09:15:08


Post by: Super Ready


 Matt Swain wrote:

Hey, if I have to remember it, you have to.
https://youtu.be/RD7VWVtm97M


Remember what? ...wait, what just happened? Everything went dark for a minute there. Did I just... watch that video...?
I feel faint... think I need a lie down.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 09:48:41


Post by: Col Hammer


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, that is certainly a hot take where Crystal Skull isn't the worst of the Indiana Jones films

I think one of the most disappointing films I've seen recently was the Tomb Raider reboot film. They were handed what could have been a really good adventure film in the form of the reboot game. Just take the best set pieces from the game (such as the plane crash, that first encounter with the Oni etc.), trim down the plot a bit and tweak it to tie it together in a feature film length and job's done.

But no, they wasted minutes riding around London on bicycles, more minutes fighting around Hong Kong, stripped out all the extra characters like Sam, Roth and Noah, stripped out all of the epic set pieces and, to top it all off, also removed any supernatural elements from the story along with a huge change in the nature of Himiko which also destroys the idea of being trapped on the island in the first place.

So much wasted potential.


Yeah, I hated it that they removed supernatrural from Tomb Raider universe for no reason. There has always been supernatural elements in Tomb Raider.
yes, this was another movie I was hopeful for and was disapointed. Why the director/writer always feels like he/she knows better than the source material? Make changes for just the sake of making changes? Bah.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 09:59:15


Post by: Overread


Crystal Skull was indeed a huge disappointment. For me it wasn't just that the script was just randomly bad and then suddenly aliens (Indie was better with subtle magics than lol aliens); it was that Harrison was badly cast in the film. They sort of wanted him to be the old action hero, yet he's really not any more.

He did far better in Cowboys and Aliens as a grumpy old general turned rancher. In that film he fits the role because the character is already old so we don't expect wild flying through the air on whips and such. He's not trying to out-run bullets etc....



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 10:20:21


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Overread wrote:
Crystal Skull was indeed a huge disappointment. For me it wasn't just that the script was just randomly bad and then suddenly aliens (Indie was better with subtle magics than lol aliens); it was that Harrison was badly cast in the film. They sort of wanted him to be the old action hero, yet he's really not any more.

He did far better in Cowboys and Aliens as a grumpy old general turned rancher. In that film he fits the role because the character is already old so we don't expect wild flying through the air on whips and such. He's not trying to out-run bullets etc....



We need a film with Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford being grumpy country folk at each other.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 10:27:06


Post by: Pacific


 Henry wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
And it had the balls to do a 'bad' ending, which again I always find impressive that the film makers have managed to get past the big studios and focus groups.

I've seen criticisms of Rogue One where people were disapointed because they already knew the outcome before watching the film (rebels get the information and a lot of people die).

That's like suggesting Downfall is a disappointing movie because we know it's going to finish with Hitler eating a bullet sandwich.


Many years ago, I remember reading about Barry Norman (RIP) and the TV show 'Film 1997'(?), and the BBC getting complaints because he had given away the ending of Titanic during the review..


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 15:57:39


Post by: Easy E


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Overread wrote:
Crystal Skull was indeed a huge disappointment. For me it wasn't just that the script was just randomly bad and then suddenly aliens (Indie was better with subtle magics than lol aliens); it was that Harrison was badly cast in the film. They sort of wanted him to be the old action hero, yet he's really not any more.

He did far better in Cowboys and Aliens as a grumpy old general turned rancher. In that film he fits the role because the character is already old so we don't expect wild flying through the air on whips and such. He's not trying to out-run bullets etc....



We need a film with Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford being grumpy country folk at each other.


A Grumpy Old Men Re-boot set in the West instead of Minnesota.......


The ending of Crystal Skull was to OTT. Sure Raiders, Last Crusade, and Temple are not subtle either; but they are not as OTT as Crystal Skull is. I was able to ignore the Fridge scene, the metal filings, etc. But once I had to see them all together and then the OTT ending..... it was too much all together.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:08:58


Post by: Jadenim


The biggest problem I had with KotCS, over and above the various stupid things, was that Indi didn’t know what was going on; in all the other films he knows the history/mythology/stories and is guiding the other characters (and you) through the story. Without that, it just bumbles aimlessly around.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:17:12


Post by: LunarSol


Crystal Skull didn't bother me, but it helped I binged the originals the day before I saw it. The end really wasn't any more random than the others, just with too much VFX work and the fridge is the same kind of silly nonsense as jumping out of the plane on the raft in ToD. The movie is overstuffed and has a little too much going on, but I really enjoy watching Harrison Ford play Sean Connery.

That's not to say its a classic or anything, but I consider it the third best movie. It doesn't rank up with Raiders or Crusade, but if for some reason I HAD to watch Skull or Temple of Doom instead of something better, I'd go with Crystal Skull.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:22:38


Post by: Voss


The effects were definitely over the top, but I do find 'alien spaceship' easier to swallow than 'earthly manifestation of divine power that would change the entire worldview of the characters and the entire world' that ended the other three films.

When people talking about Crystal Skull remark on how unbelievable they found the ending (not the bad science or the bad characters), I just look at them funny.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:29:22


Post by: Matt Swain


The original IJ trilogy was based on things like Allan Quartermain and a lot of thoise republic jungle/arabia aventure serials from the 30's and 40's, so you had mysticism and nazis.

KotCS was based on 50's stuff, so you had aliens and commies added in.

Personally I'd watch CS over ToD just because the female lead wasn't an insult to everyone with a XX chromosome and actually far more likable all around.

Speaking of CS, I have a question that may not have an actual answer: When jones is trying to save the traitor, did the traitor see indy tryingto save him despite how worthless he was and let go of the whip voluntarily to keep indy from being pulled in with him, having one last fit of conscience, or was he simply pulled off by overwhelming force?

I'm not sure if he just realized his life wasn't worth indy risking his for and let himself go as one last decent act or was simply sucked in. Any impressions on this? One last act of decency on a bad person's part of just pulled in by force?

One other thing: What happened to shia lebouf (sp?) I heard if/when they make indy 5 he won't be in it playing indy's bast...er, son, again. (They kinda glanced over the stigma a fatherless boy would suffer in the 50's.) He was a big star for a few years then just disappeared.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:31:29


Post by: Mr Morden


 Col Hammer wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, that is certainly a hot take where Crystal Skull isn't the worst of the Indiana Jones films

I think one of the most disappointing films I've seen recently was the Tomb Raider reboot film. They were handed what could have been a really good adventure film in the form of the reboot game. Just take the best set pieces from the game (such as the plane crash, that first encounter with the Oni etc.), trim down the plot a bit and tweak it to tie it together in a feature film length and job's done.

But no, they wasted minutes riding around London on bicycles, more minutes fighting around Hong Kong, stripped out all the extra characters like Sam, Roth and Noah, stripped out all of the epic set pieces and, to top it all off, also removed any supernatural elements from the story along with a huge change in the nature of Himiko which also destroys the idea of being trapped on the island in the first place.

So much wasted potential.


Yeah, I hated it that they removed supernatrural from Tomb Raider universe for no reason. There has always been supernatural elements in Tomb Raider.
yes, this was another movie I was hopeful for and was disapointed. Why the director/writer always feels like he/she knows better than the source material? Make changes for just the sake of making changes? Bah.


Personally I don't like survivor with a bow Lara as compared to Cocky gun toting Adventuer Lara but I agree the film was mediocre and the start "Poor little rich girl" biker bit was truly awful.

I did find the twist with the Himiko quite interesting, plus the star of Into the badlands I enjoy, the action was ok but the film felt it was lacking something throughout.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 17:44:51


Post by: gorgon


 Lance845 wrote:
Again, it's not a video game. Force push, force pull, force choke. Deflecting objects with the force. Lifting an x wing. These are not different powers. This is just a person using the force to reach out to influence the world around them since it exists all around them and within all things.

Influencing minds? It's the same thing to a different effect.

Force healing? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

Force Lightning? It's just the same thing to a different effect.

There isn't a list of force powers that a person in the world needs to invest in individually. There is just the force and your understanding of it that allows you to impose your will on it or you clearing your mind to allow the force to work through you.

You can't list the books you like that are no longer in cannon to justify your interpretation of it. The amount of books in the EU is vast with NO oversight. Books in the EU are not just out of canon. They are contradictory of each other. It's almost as bad as 40ks lore in terms of none of it being able to be used as a base line for anything.


'Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.'
'No. No different. Only different in your mind.'

The idea that the Force is a living energy that can be instinctively wielded by an untrained wild talent is woven throughout the original trilogy. It was in the things that came after - the prequel trilogy, EU books, video games, etc. - that the Force became codified and measurable and something requiring years of grinding and leveling up at 'Jedi/Sith academy.' Some folks are attached to the former concept...others have a lot of expectations around the latter. And that's why people still debate Rey with passion. I mean, some of it clearly IS sexism, but I think a lot of it deals with what part of the massive SW IP you're most attached to.

Personally, I loved what Rian Johnson did. It reminds of Robin Williams' character in A Dead Poet's Society telling his students to rip out the sections of their textbooks that attempted to 'measure' poetry. The EU books and prequels were (to me) pretty much the same kind of 'excrement', to use RW's words. But...different strokes for different folks.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:14:25


Post by: Matt Swain


People keep throwing the whole sexism thing into SW, like slavegirl leia was an insult to women. Uh, yeah, remember she single handedly strangled jabba to death for what he'd done to her. If that's not a powerful female character what is? Sure, jabba with his goons enslaved and degraded her with that outfit, but when it was just him and her, she took slugboy down for keeps.

In TROS we had the opposite happen. Guys had xxxxxed and moaned for the last 2 movie that rey was a "mary sue" (As if Luke wasn't a marty stew) and she was "unrealistically" powerful in a star wars movie.

So, I guess to shut these guys up they had the final fight between her and Kylo, an kylo beat her. He won the fight, but then leia pulls some long distance force magic to freeze him for a few seconds and rey runs him thru.

Then saves him.

Ok, they gave the guys xxxxxing about rey being a mary sue a bone, he clearly beat her in a fair fight.

Look, star wars was never sexist. Leia was a strong character, even darth vader could not torture information out of her FFS!

The worst portrayel on women in it was padme,who "lost the will to live" when she had newborns to care for, but people don't talk about that and instead whine about slavegirl leia, who was a far stronger character than padme.

When people xxxxxed about rey being an op mary sue they dialed her back a bit and let kylo defeat her in fair combat, and people still say she was an OP mary sue.

Ok tired rant over. Really, if you want a good star wars story walk past the theater and into a bookstore.



Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:37:40


Post by: LunarSol


Voss wrote:
The effects were definitely over the top, but I do find 'alien spaceship' easier to swallow than 'earthly manifestation of divine power that would change the entire worldview of the characters and the entire world' that ended the other three films.

When people talking about Crystal Skull remark on how unbelievable they found the ending (not the bad science or the bad characters), I just look at them funny.


I saw this movie for the first time with a rather devout atheist for the first time who came out of the film ranting about how unrealistic the ending was compared to the originals. This.... confused me.... greatly, and probably has as much to do wither tempering my thoughts on the film as watching the originals the day before.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:52:52


Post by: Lance845


The bad thing about the crystal skull is everything that had anything to do with Shia Lebuff.

feth that guy.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:54:04


Post by: LunarSol


 gorgon wrote:

'Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.'
'No. No different. Only different in your mind.'

The idea that the Force is a living energy that can be instinctively wielded by an untrained wild talent is woven throughout the original trilogy. It was in the things that came after - the prequel trilogy, EU books, video games, etc. - that the Force became codified and measurable and something requiring years of grinding and leveling up at 'Jedi/Sith academy.' Some folks are attached to the former concept...others have a lot of expectations around the latter. And that's why people still debate Rey with passion. I mean, some of it clearly IS sexism, but I think a lot of it deals with what part of the massive SW IP you're most attached to.

Personally, I loved what Rian Johnson did. It reminds of Robin Williams' character in A Dead Poet's Society telling his students to rip out the sections of their textbooks that attempted to 'measure' poetry. The EU books and prequels were (to me) pretty much the same kind of 'excrement', to use RW's words. But...different strokes for different folks.


I think the gamefication of the Force is probably the worst thing to happen to the franchise. I've ranted about this at length elsewhere, but Dark Side Points drive me up the wall. I put a lot of blame on the prequel's failure to make Anakin's fall truly compelling, as despite it being such a prominent plot device in the series, all we've ever really gotten was "tempted but ultimately redeemed" or "comically non-cannon I'm a bad guy now, die!" stuff. TLJ is the first time since RotJ that the Dark Side has felt like it might get properly explored, but RoS squashed any hope of that happening for me. :(


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:54:23


Post by: Henry


 LunarSol wrote:
a rather devout atheist for the first time who came out of the film ranting about how unrealistic the ending was compared to the originals. This.... confused me.... greatly,

Strolling past the observation there's no such thing as a devout atheist...

Atheists like fantasy stories as much as anyone else. Fantasy stories have their own rules to work in and when those rules get broken it becomes unrealistic. The Indiana Jones universe has mystic powers that aren't mainstream and are unknown but most of the population. That fits in with the realism of the Indiana Jones universe. Alien magic doesn't and your friend found that unrealistic. I can't know your friend's mind but this would be my understanding. It's verisimilitude.

It's why "boring conversation anyway" is a joke that fits into the Star Wars universe but the dreadful "yo mamma" joke at the start of TLJ is belief breakingly unrealistic.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 18:56:52


Post by: LunarSol


 Henry wrote:

Strolling past the observation there's no such thing as a devout atheist...


Yeah, I was failing to find a better descriptor. Insistent?


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 19:23:39


Post by: Azreal13


Committed.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 19:48:13


Post by: Captain Joystick


Darn... I'm having trouble picking.

I never watched the Matrix again after seeing that third movie.

After seeing Attack of the Clones in theatres I went from a nerd who consumed every piece of Star Wars media he could get his hands on to a nerd who... didn't, at all; at least until X-Wing miniatures roped me back in.

Terminator 3 was the first movie I went to the mall to see myself after moving to a new city. Got confused by the bus schedule, nearly got hit by a truck, and honestly I'm still not sure if that would have been worse than seeing that movie.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 19:56:16


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Nuance matters. Execution matters. Some people are less sensitive to lack of both of those than others. Two scenes that seem just as plausible to you can span a world of difference to others.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 20:51:58


Post by: Captain Joystick


 Matt Swain wrote:
One other thing: What happened to shia lebouf (sp?) I heard if/when they make indy 5 he won't be in it playing indy's bast...er, son, again. (They kinda glanced over the stigma a fatherless boy would suffer in the 50's.) He was a big star for a few years then just disappeared.


LaBeouf took his Transformers money and took it into the indie scene: live performance art, public drunk and disorderlies, the occasional small to midsized drama film (including a pretty fantastic supporting role in Fury).


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 21:16:23


Post by: insaniak


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Nuance matters. Execution matters. Some people are less sensitive to lack of both of those than others. Two scenes that seem just as plausible to you can span a world of difference to others.

Indeed. I remember seeing Deep Blue Sea at the cinema with a friend. Out of all of the issues with that movie, the one that killed it for him was sharks swimming backwards, something that didn't phase me anywhere near as much as how tediously predictable it was. And given my rather 'brain-switched-off' approach to movie watching, if I'm finding it predictable, that's saying something...


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 21:48:31


Post by: Henry


No Country for Old Men.

Was really excited to see this, then got to the end of the film in the cinema and looked along the seats to see a row off people with puzzled looks on their faces asking "was that it?". It was so unimpressive the only part of the movie I can recall for certain was just how disappointing it was.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 21:49:07


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


To be fair to Deep Blue Sea, I think it was trying to go for that good-bad target so few movies ever achieve on purpose. It being predictable may have been intended as a feature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Henry wrote:
No Country for Old Men.

Was really excited to see this, then got to the end of the film in the cinema and looked along the seats to see a row off people with puzzled looks on their faces asking "was that it?". It was so unimpressive the only part of the movie I can recall for certain was just how disappointing it was.


Sounds like it nailed the book, then.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 21:57:13


Post by: Overread


You know one day someone will video a shark swimming backwards and all those people who hate that being part of Deep Blue Sea will have to rethink things

Thing is I'm totally fine with that because its pointed out moments later in the film that sharks don't do that. The film does something naturally abnormal and points it out as being abnormal. Which kind of goes with the sharks behaviour being totally unshark-like in general.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/27 22:51:14


Post by: Lance845


It's called hanging a lantern or hanging a lampshade on it. If you do something crazy and then the people in the movie acknowledge that it's crazy the audience tends to agree with the characters and accept it.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 05:17:04


Post by: cuda1179


I have a list, and I don't know which is the biggest letdown.

Natural Born Killers
Spice World
Ghostbusters (2016)
Force Awakens
The Happening
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Haunting (Liam Neeson version)
Nightmare on Elm Street reboot
John Carpenter's Vampires 2
Little Women (2019)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Captain Joystick wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
One other thing: What happened to shia lebouf (sp?) I heard if/when they make indy 5 he won't be in it playing indy's bast...er, son, again. (They kinda glanced over the stigma a fatherless boy would suffer in the 50's.) He was a big star for a few years then just disappeared.


LaBeouf took his Transformers money and took it into the indie scene: live performance art, public drunk and disorderlies, the occasional small to midsized drama film (including a pretty fantastic supporting role in Fury).


I really like how LaBeouf tried getting political for a while and a cult following trolled him at every step. He put anti-conservative flags up at "secret locations" and livestreamed them. It took only a couple days for people to locate them using star maps and when the sun set to find them and steal them.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 06:33:58


Post by: Just Tony


 cuda1179 wrote:
Spice World


What the hell kind of expectations could you possibly have going in to a Spice Girls movie?!?!?!?!??!


On the subject of Shia, he did manage to do "Peanut Butter Falcon" which is honestly a more humanitarian feat than I would have given him credit for.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 07:46:26


Post by: LordofHats


 Captain Joystick wrote:
(including a pretty fantastic supporting role in Fury).


I think Fury proved Shia can act. But the Transformers movies, and CS imo, were never about casting good actors. Spectacle movies rarely are. Fury kind of fell into that blurry zone between a hardcore drama and a spectacle film. I was kind of disappointing in it when it came out mostly because I found it couldn't pick a lane and suffered for it, but Shia definitely gave one of the movie's better performances.

EDIT: Though, at the same time Fury proved Shia is kind of fething crazy, and more so than the typical method actor crazy. Dude pulled out a tooth for his role and didn't bath for weeks.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 09:07:43


Post by: insaniak


Transformers proved Shia can act. The problem with his performance wasn't that it was bad, just that the character was intensely annoying.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 10:01:14


Post by: Pacific


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To be fair to Deep Blue Sea, I think it was trying to go for that good-bad target so few movies ever achieve on purpose. It being predictable may have been intended as a feature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Henry wrote:
No Country for Old Men.

Was really excited to see this, then got to the end of the film in the cinema and looked along the seats to see a row off people with puzzled looks on their faces asking "was that it?". It was so unimpressive the only part of the movie I can recall for certain was just how disappointing it was.


Sounds like it nailed the book, then.


I agree. I know a lot of people made a fuss about him but really not a fan of Cormac McCarthy. The Road is probably the single most depressing thing I have ever read, and not even in the manner of something like The Boy in the Stiped Pajamas (which made you sit and swallow a lump in your throat afterwards) - it was just bloody awful.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 13:29:48


Post by: Matt Swain


How about Fantastic four? I was incredibly disappointed that as bad as the last 2 were the reboot managed to be a xxxxton worse in every way.


Most disappointing movie you saw. @ 2020/10/28 13:34:30


Post by: Lance845


While appeasing the chinese might very well be a factor, Tilda Swinton is also a VERY good actress and does a great job with the part while the Ancient One was one of those 70s racial stereotype characters. There are no doubt layers to the reasons to cast the AO different and I think the product that came out was better for it.